Stoops v. Sherman et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 1/24/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RANDY STOOPS,

11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01581-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 7)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On December 12, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to

21

state a claim but gave thirty days leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) The thirty-day deadline

22

passed without Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or notice of voluntary

23

dismissal, or seeking an extension of time to do so.

24

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

25

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

27

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

28

1

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.

2

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

3

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

4

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

5

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

6

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a

7

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

8

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

9

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

10

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

11

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either:

14

a. File an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or

15

b. Show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with

16

prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure

17

to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 7); and

18

2.

19

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend
that the action be dismissed with prejudice.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 24, 2017

/s/

23

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2