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