Contreras v. Kernan
ORDER DISMISSING action for plaintiff's failure to state a claim, obey the court's orders and to prosecute this action signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/3/2017. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-01111-SKO (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, OBEY THE COURT’S ORDERS,
AND TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION
SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,
(Docs. 8, 10, 12, 13)
Plaintiff, Ruben Contreras, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction of a
United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes in this action. (Doc. 9.)
On June 2, 2017, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any
cognizable claims, dismissing the First Amended Complaint, and granting Plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to
file a second amended complaint. (Docs. 11, 12.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint
or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order within the specified time period. Thus, on
August 21, 2017, an order issued for Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why the
action should not be dismissed based on his failure to comply with the Court’s June 2, 2017,
screening order and to prosecute the action; alternatively, Plaintiff was allowed to file an
amended complaint, or a voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 13.) Over a month has lapsed without any
response from Plaintiff to either of these orders.
As noted in the order to show cause, 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 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may
dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring
amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424
(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Plaintiff
appears to have abandoned this action, justifying dismissal.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice
based on Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim, and Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this
action and obey the Court’s June 2, 2017, and August 21, 2017, orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 3, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sheila K. Oberto
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?