Calihan v. King et al

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and for Failure to State a Claim; Twenty-One (21) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/21/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KENNY CALIHAN, 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Defendants. 11 12 Case No. 1:17-cv-00535-LJO-SKO (PC) (Doc. 11) v. KING, et al., 13 14 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 Plaintiff, Kenny Calihan, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 17 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On October 19, 2017, the Court issued an 18 order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims, dismissing the Complaint, and 19 granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) More than the allowed time 20 has passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint or otherwise respond to the 21 Court’s screening order.1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 22 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 26 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 27 1 28 It appears that Plaintiff has been released from custody and may have chosen to abandon this action. (See 11/08/2017 docket entry “Mail Returned as Undeliverable . . . Inmate Paroled 8/18/17.”) 1 1 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 2 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 3 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 5 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 6 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 7 prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the 8 9 date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a 10 claim, to comply with the Court’s order, and to state a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within 11 that same time period, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary 12 dismissal. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 21, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?