Bettencourt v. Ballesteros et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders and for Failure to State a Claim signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/5/2018. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.
BALLESTEROS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01184-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS
AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
(Docs. 3, 7, 8)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

15
Plaintiff, Gary Ray Bettencourt, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16
17

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On December 13, 2017, the

18

Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims and

19

granting Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) Although more than the

20

allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint or otherwise

21

respond to the Court’s screening order. It is also noted that Plaintiff has failed to respond to the

22

Court’s orders of August 29, 2017, (Doc. 3), and October 16, 2017, (Doc. 7), by indicating

23

whether he consents to magistrate judge jurisdiction and filing the form provided in each those

24

orders.

25

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

26

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

27

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

28

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
1

1

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

2

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

3

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

4

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

6

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

7

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

8

prosecute and to comply with local rules). Not only has Plaintiff failed to file a first amended

9

complaint in response to the screening order of December 13, 2017, he has failed to respond to

10

any of the orders that have issued in this action. It, therefore, appears that Plaintiff has abandoned

11

this case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the

12
13

date of service of this order why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be

14

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim and failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

15

Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint and the form

16

indicating whether he consents to magistrate judge jurisdiction, or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 5, 2018

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.