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)

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

.