Deontray Thomas v. Melendez et al
Filing
10
ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/28/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEONTRAY THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
v.
DANNI MELENDEZ, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:16-cv-01759 - LJO-JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER
16
17
Deontray Thomas seeks to state claims for violations of his civil rights by Bakersfield police
18
officers, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. On January 17, 2017, the Court dismissed the First Amended
19
Complaint with leave to amend, directing Plaintiff “to provide facts sufficient to support his claims
20
and to clarify whether the claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or the Younger
21
abstention doctrine.” (Doc. 9 at 9) The Court granted Plaintiff thirty from the date of service, or until
22
February 21, 2017, to file an amended complaint. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a Second
23
Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
24
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
25
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
26
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have
27
inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
28
including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1
1
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
2
an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
3
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
4
requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
5
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th
6
Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
7
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service
8
of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order, or
9
in the alternative, to file a Second Amended Complaint.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 28, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?