Lear v. Manasrah

Filing 14

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 RE 10 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/4/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14-Days.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RODERICK WILLIAM LEAR,

11

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

Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00071-DAD-MJS (PC)

(ECF No. 10)

v.
A. MANASRAH,

14
15

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
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 February 15, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state

21

a claim but gave leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 10.) On March 13, 2017,

22

Plaintiff filed objections to findings and recommendations relating to a separate issue

23

and therein stated that he was “writing his amended complaint . . . and will have it before

24

the Court immediately.” (ECF No. 12.) However, he did not request an extension of time

25

to amend. Ultimately, the thirty-day deadline passed without Plaintiff filing either an

26

amended pleading or notice of voluntary dismissal, or seeking an extension of time to do

27

so.

28

1

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

2

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

3

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

4

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

5

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.

6

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

7

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure

8

to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

9

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-

10

61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a

11

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure

12

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);

13

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

14

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

15

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

16

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

17

1.

Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either:

18

a. File an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or

19

b. Show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with

20

prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure

21

to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 10); and

22

2.

23

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend
that the action be dismissed with prejudice.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 4, 2017

/s/

27

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2