George v. Voong 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; Twenty-One (21) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/11/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RICHARD EARL GEORGE,
(Docs. 1, 6)
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
VOONG, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01514-SKO (PC)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff, Richard Earl George, 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 7, 2017, the Court issued an
order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and
granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc.
6.) More than a month has passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or
otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order.
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).
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 both his failure to state a
claim and to comply with the Court’s order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file
a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 11, 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?