Baker v. Moreno, et al.

Filing 32

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 Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 01/10/2018. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13

1:16-cv-01758-AWI-SKO (PC)

TOMMIE LEE BAKER, III,

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 PROSECUTE

Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND A. MORENO, et al.,

(Docs. 27, 29)

Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff, Tommie Lee Baker, III, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On November 27, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 asserting Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
filing suit. (Doc. 27.) On November 28, 2017, a Second Informational Order issued informing
Plaintiff of the requirements to oppose a motion for summary judgment as well as his duty to file
either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition and was ordered to file either responsive
document within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. 29.) More than a month has lapsed without
Plaintiff filing either pleading.
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

26
27
28

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
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

9

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

10

date of service of this Order why the action should not be recommended for dismissal due to his

11

failure comply with the Court’s order and his failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively,

12

within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

13

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated:

January 10, 2018

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.