Clark v. Brazelton et al

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/26/15: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:15-cv-00350-JLT (PC)

BRINT CLARK,

v.
BRAZELTON, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER
(Doc. 14)
30-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

Plaintiff, Brint Clark, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on March 5, 2015.

19

(Doc. 1.) On April 16, 2015, an order issued which both screened and dismissed the Complaint

20

and granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 6.) Despite requesting and

21

receiving three extensions of time to do so, Plaintiff's first amended complaint is now almost two

22

weeks overdue. (See Docs. 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.)

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, within 30 days Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing why the

8

action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order of July 9, 2015 by

9

filing a first amended complaint; alternatively, within that same deadline, Plaintiff may show

10

cause by filing a first amended complaint. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond may

11

result in termination of this action.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2