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)

Download PDF
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?