Jackson v. Smalley et al

Filing 18

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; Show Cause Response due within Fourteen (14) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/20/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form)(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PATRICK JACKSON,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
L. SMALLEY, et al.,
Defendant.

16

CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00110-MJS (PC)
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
(ECF No. 9)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

17
18
19
20

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.

21

On February 13, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state

22

a claim but gave him thirty days to amend. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff twice requested, and

23

twice was given, extensions of time to file an amended complaint. The Court’s May 5,

24

2017, extension of time was noted to be the last that would be given; Plaintiff was

25

advised he would have until June 5, 2017, to file an amended complaint, and that no

26

further extensions would be granted absent a showing of good cause. (ECF No. 16.)

27

That final deadline passed without Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or notice of

28

voluntary dismissal.

1

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with

2

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

3

any 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

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

10

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

11

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

12

failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

13

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing

14

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

15

Cir. 1986) (dismissing 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 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. 9); 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:

June 20, 2017

/s/

27

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3