Thomas v. Parks et al

Filing 27

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 17 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 09/19/17. Show Cause Response due (21-Day Deadline). (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EDWARD THOMAS,

10

Case No. 1:16-cv-01393-LJO-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff,

Defendants.

11

(Doc. 17)

v.

12

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

S. PARKS, et al.,

13
14

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Plaintiff, Edward Thomas, 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 June 6, 2017, the Court issued an order

18

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

19

Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 17.) Three months have

20

now passed and Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint or otherwise responded to the

21

Court’s screening order.1
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

22
23

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

24

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

25

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

26
1

27
28

Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal challenging denial of motions for injunctive relief. (See Doc. 24.) However,
this Court retains jurisdiction over this action because no appeal lies from an order denying requests for injunctive
relief. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328, 1330 (9th Cir. 1986). This action shall, therefore, proceed without
further delay.

1

1

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

2

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

3

based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9
10

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

11

and to comply with the Court’s screening order (Doc. 17); alternatively, within that same time,

12

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

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 19, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.