(PC) Moses v. Biter, et al.

Filing 14

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 Case No.: 1:18-cv-00995-SKO (PC) KEVON MOSES, ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER v. BITER, et al., Defendants. (Docs. 12, 13) 16 17 21-DAY DEADLINE 18 19 Plaintiff Kevon Moses is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 20, 2019, the Court issued an order 21 finding that Plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims in his first amended complaint, and 22 granting leave for Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 13.) 23 Although more than 21 days have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or to 24 otherwise respond to the Court’s screening order. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 26 of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 27 Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court. Local Rule 110. 28 1 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and, in exercising that power, they 2 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los 3 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s 4 failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 6 order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 7 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 8 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local 9 rules). Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 10 11 of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to comply 12 with the Court’s second screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a 13 second amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: October 7, 2019 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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?