Harris v. Severson et al

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 for Failure to State a Claim, 4 . Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of se rvice of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure comply with the Court's February 13, 2018 screening order by not filing an amended complaint within the specified period of t ime and for failure to state a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/20/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No. 1:17-cv-1750-AWI-SKO

BERT HARRIS,

v.

9
10
11
12

SERGEANT MIKE SEVERSON, individually
and in his official capacity, and CITY OF
FRESNO, individually and in their official
capacity ,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S
ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO
STATE A CLAIM
(Doc. 4.)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

13
14
15

Plaintiff, Bert Harris, is a prisoner in the custody of Fresno County Jail. On December 27,

16

2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint against Defendants Sergeant Mike

17

Severson and the City of Fresno purporting to allege causes of action for excessive force and

18

failure to properly train officers in violation of Plaintiff’s “8th Amendment Rights to the United

19

States Constitution,” apparently arising out of his arrest by Defendants. (Doc. 1 at 3–4.) Plaintiff

20

also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was

21

granted on January 10, 2018. (Docs. 2 & 3.)

22

On February 13, 2018, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed

23

to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff thirty days leave to file an amended complaint

24

curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 4.) Although more than the allowed

25

time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the

26
27
28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

to comply with local rules).

11

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

12

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

13

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s February 13, 2018 screening order

14
15
16
17
18
19

by not filing an amended complaint within the specified period of time and for failure to
state a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff
that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the
Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its
entirety.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed

20
21
22

on the docket for this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated:

March 20, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2

.