Hicks v. Mantevousian et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute this action,signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 09/15/17. Show Cause Response due by 10/12/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARQUIS HICKS, Case No. 1:16-cv-01440-JLT (PC) 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 MANTEVOUSIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. (Docs. 9) 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On June 20, 2017, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to submit service 19 documents and USM-285 Forms for service on Defendants within twenty-one days. (Doc. 9.) On 20 July 6, 2017, this order was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. More 21 than two months have passed and Plaintiff has failed to update his address of record in this action, 22 to submit the requisite documents for service of the complaint or to otherwise respond to the 23 Court’s June 20, 2017 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 court 28 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 1 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 2 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 3 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 4 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 5 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 6 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 7 to comply with local rules). 8 Further, Plaintiff was informed in the First Informational Order that Local Rule 182(f) 9 requires him to keep the Court informed of his correct, current address. (Doc. 3.) That order 10 further informed Plaintiff that he would have sixty-three days from the date of receipt by the Court 11 of mail returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Postal Service to update his address in this action 12 and that his failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. (Id.) 13 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 14 of this order why the action should not be dismissed for both his failure to comply with the 15 Court’s June 20, 2017 order and to keep his address in this action updated; alternatively, within 16 that same time, Plaintiff may submit the documents for service on Defendants, or file a notice of 17 voluntary dismissal. 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 15, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?