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)

Download PDF
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 .

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?