Arviso v. Chapnick et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/7/2017 DISMISSING this action. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL Q. ARVISO,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-1414-EFB P

v.

ORDER

DR. CHAPNICK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).
On October 3, 2017, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21
22

1915A. The court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint, explained the deficiencies therein and granted

23

plaintiff thirty days in which file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencies. ECF No. 7.

24

The order warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action for

25

failure to prosecute. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended

26

complaint, or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

27

/////

28

////
1

1

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

2

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

3

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or

4

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

6

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

7

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

8

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

9

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110.

12

Dated: November 7, 2017.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2