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)

Download PDF
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

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?