Carter v. Yates

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/4/2016 ORDERING no later than 4/7/2016, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed for plaintiffs failure to prosecute the action and failure to co mply with the court's order of 3 ; On or before 4/7/2016, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that addresses the issues raised in the court's screening order entered on 1/4/2016; Plaintiffs' failure to file the required writing and amended complaint shall constitute an additional ground for, and plaintiffs' consent to, the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiffs' case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a). (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARLICE CARTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-2679-JAM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JAHMAN YATES,

15

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Darlice Carter, who is proceeding without counsel, filed her complaint and

17
18

application to proceed in forma pauperis on December 28, 2015.1 (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On January

19

4, 2016, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed

20

the complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and granted plaintiff leave

21

to file an amended pleading within 28 days. (ECF No. 3.)
It has been more than 28 days since the deadline for plaintiff to file an amended pleading

22
23

pursuant to the undersigned’s order of January 4, 2016. (ECF No. 3.) To date, plaintiff has not

24

filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the court is inclined to recommend, on its own motion,

25

the dismissal of plaintiff’s action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26

41(b) for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

27
28

1

This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

failure to comply with this court’s order (ECF No. 3), which is incorporated by reference herein.

2

Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with

3

these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and

4

all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover,

5

Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:

6
7
8
9

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney
is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these
Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on
“counsel” by these Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria
persona. Failure to comply therewith may be ground for dismissal
. . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.

10

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the

11

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Case law is in accord that a district court

12

may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case with prejudice

13

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her

14

case or fails to comply with the court’s orders. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44

15

(1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”);

16

Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)

17

(stating that courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua

18

sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the

19

court’s orders); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with

21

any order of the court.”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City

22

of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent

23

power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal), cert. denied, 479

24

U.S. 829 (1986).

25

Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court will provide plaintiff with one

26

final opportunity to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s January 4, 2016

27

order (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff is also directed to file with the court a separate statement explaining

28

her failure to comply with the court’s order and why this case should not be dismissed based on
2

1
2
3

that failure.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

By no later than April 7, 2016, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this case

4

should not be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute the action and failure to

5

comply with the court’s order of January 4, 2016 (ECF No. 3).

6

2.

On or before April 7, 2016, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint that

7

addresses the issues raised in the court’s screening order entered on January 4,

8

2016 (ECF No. 3).

9

3.

Plaintiffs’ failure to file the required writing and amended complaint shall

10

constitute an additional ground for, and plaintiffs’ consent to, the imposition of

11

appropriate sanctions, including a recommendation that plaintiffs’ case be

12

involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

13

Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a).

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 4, 2016

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3