Taft v. California Department of Corrections et al

Filing 11

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/8/2017. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LEON DESHAY TAFT, III, 10 11 12 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECITONS, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01822-SKO (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER (Docs. 1, 10) 13 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff, Leon Deshay Taft, 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 June 29, 2017, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. 10.) More than twenty-one (21) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order. 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 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 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 28 1 1 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 2 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 3 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 4 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 5 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the 7 date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for both his failure to state a 8 claim and to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within this same time period, Plaintiff 9 may file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 8, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 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?