Powell v. Sutton, et al.
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 12 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/22/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
J. SUTTON, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00301-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. 12)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
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.
On May 12, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a
claim but gave him thirty days to amend. (ECF No. 12.) That deadline passed without
Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or a notice of voluntary dismissal, or seeking
an extension of time to do so.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with
these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of
any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the
inherent power to control their dockets and, “in the exercise of that power, they may
impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v.
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, failure to obey a court order, or failure
to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(dismissing for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-
61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissing for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of
a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissing for
failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of
address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing
for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th
Cir. 1986) (dismissing for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall
a. File an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or
b. Show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with
prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure
to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 12); and
If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the undersigned will recommend
that the action be dismissed with prejudice, subject to the “three strikes”
provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 22, 2017
Michael J. Seng
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?