Thomas v. Parks et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-01393-LJO-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
S. PARKS, et al.,
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Edward Thomas, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 6, 2017, the Court issued an order
finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and granting
Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 17.) Three months have
now passed and Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint or otherwise responded to the
Court’s screening order.1
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
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
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, 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).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the
date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim
and to comply with the Court’s screening order (Doc. 17); alternatively, within that same time,
Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 19, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?