Maxwell v. Garibay

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/6/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAWN MAXWELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
MAGDELENA GARIBAY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-01149 -LJO-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16
17

Shawn Maxwell seeks to proceed pro se and in this action. On August 30, 2017, the Court

18

determined Plaintiff failed to clearly identify the cause of action upon which he seeks to proceed, or to

19

allege facts sufficient for the Court to determine he stated a cognizable claim. (Doc. 4 at 3-4) Further,

20

the Court found the allegations were insufficient to conclude the Court has jurisdiction over the action.

21

(Id. at 5-6) Plaintiff was granted thirty days from the date of service to file an amended complaint. To

22

date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

23

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

24

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

25

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

26

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

27

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

1

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

2

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

3

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

4

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

5

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service

7

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order and

8

failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 6, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2