Bolton v. Holland et al

Filing 21

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/8/2017. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

WAYNE BOLTON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
HOLLAND, et al.,

13

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER
(Docs. 1, 18, 20)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16

Plaintiff, Wayne Bolton, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On February 22, 2017, the Court issued an

18

order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and

19

granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty (30) days. (Doc. 18.)

20

On March 29, 2017, an order issued granting Plaintiff’s motion for a thirty (30) day extension of

21

time to file a first amended complaint. (Docs. 19, 20.) More than thirty (30) days have passed

22

and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s

23

screening order.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of

8
9

service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim and to

10

comply with the Court’s order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first

11

amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

15

May 8, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.