Matthews v. Holland

Filing 49

ORDER to SHOW why the Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/10/2018. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

IVAN LEE MATTHEWS,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
HOLLAND,

1:14-cv-01959-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(Docs. 46)

Defendant.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

14
15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 6, 2017, Defendant filed a motion for

17

judgment on the pleadings asserting qualified immunity. (Doc. 46.) Per Local Rule 230 (l),

18

Plaintiff was required to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within twenty-one

19

days of the date that Defendant filed the motion. More than one month has lapsed without

20

Plaintiff filing either pleading.

21

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

22

of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

23

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

24

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

25

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

26

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

27

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

28

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
1

1

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

2

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

3

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

4

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the

6

date of service of this Order why the action should not be recommended for dismissal due to his

7

failure comply with the Court’s Local Rules and his failure to prosecute this action.

8

Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an opposition or a statement of non-

9

opposition to Defendants’ motion, or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 10, 2018

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.