Powell v. Sutton, et al.

Filing 13

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TROY POWELL,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
J. SUTTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16

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

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 May 12, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a

22

claim but gave him thirty days to amend. (ECF No. 12.) That deadline passed without

23

Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or a notice of voluntary dismissal, or seeking

24

an extension of time to do so.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

Cir. 1986) (dismissing for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

12

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

13

1.

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 12); and

19

2.

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the undersigned will recommend

20

that the action be dismissed with prejudice, subject to the “three strikes”

21

provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 22, 2017

/s/

25

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2