(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)

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

.