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)

Download PDF
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 .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?