Feliciano v. Igbinosa et al

Filing 14

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and to Prosecute this Action signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 06/02/2016. Show Cause Response due by 6/27/2016.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

VALENTIN FELICIANO,
Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE
THIS ACTION

Defendants.

12
13

Case No. 1:15-cv-01735-DAD-JLT (PC)

(Doc. 11)

v.
IGBINOSA, et al.,

21 DAY DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff, Valentin Feliciano, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on
receipt of inadequate medical care. The Complaint was screened per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and
dismissed with leave to amend within 30 days. (Doc. 11.) On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff’s request
for a 30-day extension of time to file a first amended complaint was granted. (Docs. 12, 13.)
More than a month has now passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint, or to
otherwise respond to the Court's Order.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

be dismissed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order and to prosecute this

9
10
11

Within 21 days Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why this action should not

action; and
2. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order in the time provided will result in

12

recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 2, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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