Jones v. Oliveira, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order; Show Cause Response due within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/25/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

CHARLES B. JONES,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01311-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

M. OLIVEIRA, et al.,
(Docs. 13, 15)

13

Defendants.
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff, Charles B. Jones, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On May 15, 2018, the Court issued an order
finding that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants J. Garcia, Ortega,
John Doe #1, and John Doe #3, but granted Plaintiff leave to file a first amended complaint curing
the identified deficiencies. (Doc. 13.) Plaintiff was directed to either file a first amended
complaint, or a statement setting forth his desire to proceed solely on the cognizable retaliation
claim against Defendants J. Garcia, Ortega, John Doe #1, and John Doe #3, dismissing all other
claims and defendants. (Id.) Plaintiff requested and received an extension of time to file a first
amended complaint. (Docs. 14, 15.) More than the allowed time has passed and Plaintiff has
failed to file a first amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the

10
11

date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with

12

the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended

13

complaint, a statement indicating that he desires to only proceed on the retaliation claim against

14

Defendants J. Garcia, Ortega, John Doe #1, and John Doe #3 dismissing all other claims and

15

defendants, or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 25, 2018

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.