George v. Voong et al

Filing 7

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

RICHARD EARL GEORGE,

10

Plaintiff,

(Docs. 1, 6)

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

Defendants.

11

VOONG, et al.,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01514-SKO (PC)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

15
16

Plaintiff, Richard Earl George, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

17

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On June 7, 2017, the Court issued an

18

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

19

granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc.

20

6.) More than a month has passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or

21

otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

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

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

27

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

28

1

1

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the

8

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

9

claim and to comply with the Court’s order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file

10

a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 11, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.