Tejeda v. Mendez et al

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/6/2017. Show Cause Response due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PEDRO TEJEDA, 11 12 13 14 15 16 CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01792-MJS (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Defendants. (ECF No. 8) v. MENDEZ, et al., FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On January 23, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state 21 a claim but gave leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 8.) The thirty-day deadline 22 passed without Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or notice of voluntary 23 dismissal, or seeking an extension of time to do so. 24 Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 25 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the 27 inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may 28 1 impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 2 Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 3 prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure 4 to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) 5 (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260- 6 61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a 7 complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 8 to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 9 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 10 comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 11 (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 12 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 13 1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either: 14 a. File an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or 15 b. Show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with 16 prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure 17 to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 8); and 18 2. 19 If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed with prejudice. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2017 /s/ 23 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?