Lipsey v. Seitz et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/07/2019. Show Cause Response due by 11/1/2019.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY, JR.,
ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S ORDER
B. SEITZ, et al.,
Case No.: 1:18-cv-00766-AWI-SKO (PC)
(Docs. 14, 18)
Plaintiff Christopher Lipsey, Jr., is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2019, the Court issued an
order finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims in his first amended complaint,
and granting Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 18.)
Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or to
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.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and, in exercising that power, they
may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s
failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31
(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779
F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service
of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to comply
with the Court’s second screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a
second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 7, 2019
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?