Bryant v. U.S. Bank et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court's June 13, 2017 Order by not filing a second amended complaint within the specified period of time. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to file this statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/5/2017. (Timken, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:16-cv-1688-AWI-SKO
MARY J. BRYANT,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S
U.S. BANK, et al.,
On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against U.S. Bank, “Buckley
Madole,” and N.B.S. Default Services (collectively “Defendants”).
Plaintiff had also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) with her original
complaint. (Doc. 2.) On June 13, 2017, the undersigned dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint
for failure to state a cognizable federal claim, and granted Plaintiff fourteen (14) days leave to file
(Doc. 4 (“Am. Compl.”).)
a second amended complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the Order. (Doc. 5.)
More than fourteen days have lapsed without Plaintiff having filed a second amended complaint.
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 fourteen (14) days of the
date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for her failure comply
with the Court’s June 13, 2017 Order by not filing a second amended complaint within the
specified period of time. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to file this
statement within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend
to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at her address listed
on the docket for this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 5, 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?