Taft v. California Department of Corrections et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LEON DESHAY TAFT, III,
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)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
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
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the
date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for both his failure to state a
claim and to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within this same time period, Plaintiff
may file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 8, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?