Kasey F. Hoffman v. Pulido et al

Filing 28

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be DISMISSED for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/31/2019. Show Cause Response due within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS.(Orozco, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KASEY F. HOFFMANN,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:18-cv-00209-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

L. PULIDO, et al.,
21-DAY DEADLINE

15

Defendants.

16
17

On November 22, 2019, the Court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to file a first

18

amended complaint or, in the alternative, to file a notice that he wishes to proceed only on the

19

claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 27.) The Court granted Plaintiff until December 13,

20

2019, to comply with its order. (See id.) Although the deadline has passed, Plaintiff has failed to

21

file an amended complaint or a notice, or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide,

23

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for

24

the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.”

25

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising

26

that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

27

City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a

28

party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

1

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a

2

court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir.

3

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

4

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service

6

of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s

7

screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file one of the following three

8

documents: (1) a first amended complaint, (2) a notice that he wishes to proceed only on the

9

claims found cognizable in the Court’s screening order, (Doc. 27), and to seek only compensatory

10

damages for the loss of good-time credits and punitive damages, OR (3) a notice of voluntary

11

dismissal of this case.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 31, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.