Annis v. Hamilton et al

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/6/2022. (Kusamura, W)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 AUDREY ANN ANNIS, 10 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 Case No. 1:22-cv-00051-DAD-SKO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL (Doc. 5) 13 RACHEL HAMILTON, et al., 14 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 15 16 _____________________________________/ 17 18 On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint 19 in this action. (Docs. 1, 2.) 20 On March 28, 2022, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 21 state any cognizable claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 22 thirty days. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an 23 extension of time in which to do so. 24 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 25 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 26 or 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 28 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 1 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 3 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 4 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 5 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 7 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 8 with local rules). 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 10 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 11 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his 12 case. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or a 13 notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action 14 within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to the 15 presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 16 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 17 on the docket for this matter. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: 21 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto May 6, 2022 . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?