Contreras v. Kernan

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order and for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/21/2017. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RUBEN CONTRERAS,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01111-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER
AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 8, 10, 12)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Plaintiff, Ruben Contreras, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

17

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On July 11, 2017, the Court issued an order

18

finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the First Amended

19

Complaint, and granting Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff

20

also requested and received an extension of time to file a Second Amended Complaint. (Docs.

21

11, 12.) Plaintiff has failed to file a second amended complaint or otherwise respond to the

22

Court’s screening order within the time provided in the order.

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

7
8

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

9

and to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within the same 21-day time period,

10

Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 21, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.