Ruiz v. Curry

Filing 23

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/18/18. Show Cause Response Due Within Twenty One Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROGELIO MAY RUIZ,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01407-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

J. CURRY,
(Docs. 20, 22)

13

Defendant.
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff, Rogelio May Ruiz, 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 17, 2018, the Court issued an order
finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days. (Doc. 20.) Although more than 21 days
have passed, Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint, nor otherwise responded 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.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7

date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to state a claim

8

and to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may

9

file a second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 18, 2018

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.