Sermeno v. Monterey County Superior Court et al

Filing 20

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 Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/20/2017. Show Cause Response due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY ALTAMIRANO SERMENO, Case No. 1:17-cv-00036-AWI-JLT (PC) 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 (Docs. 1, 13, 19) 30-DAY DEADLINE On January 12, 2017, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any 18 cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a first 19 amended complaint within 30 days. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff requested and, on February 23, 2017, 20 received a 30-day extension of time. (Docs. 18, 19.) More than 30 days have passed and Plaintiff 21 has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's screening order. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 23 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 24 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 25 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 26 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 27 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 28 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 1 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 2 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 3 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 4 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 5 to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 30 days of the date of service 7 of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for both his failure to state a claim and to 8 comply with the Court’s order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a notice of 9 voluntary dismissal. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 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?