Gil v. Yates et al
Filing
37
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE For Failure to Comply With the Court's May 4, 2011 Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 6/20/2011. Plaintiff must show cause OR file an amended complaint by 8/1/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FRANCISCO J. GIL
Plaintiff,
10
11
12
13
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00917-GBC (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S MAY 4,
2011 SCREENING ORDER
v.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
(ECF No. 36)
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW CAUSE OR FILE
AN AMENDED COMPLAINT BY AUGUST
1, 2011
14
/
15
16
ORDER
17
Plaintiff Francisco J. Gil is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2011, the Court
19
screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and found that it failed to state any claims
20
upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No. 36.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s
21
Complaint and ordered him to file a third amended complaint within thirty days. (Id.)
22
Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Court’s Order may result in dismissal
23
of this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Id.)
24
Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these
25
Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court
26
of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have
27
the inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may
28
impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.
1
1
Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with
2
prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,
3
or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.
4
1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
5
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment
6
of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure
7
to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address);
8
Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to
9
comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)
10
(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint or otherwise responded to the
11
12
Court’s May 4, 2011 Screening Order and well in excess of thirty days have passed.
13
Accordingly, not later than August 1, 2011, Plaintiff shall either file a third amended
14
complaint or show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed.
15
Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to comply with this Order will result in
16
dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to state a claim upon which relief
17
could be granted.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated:
1j0bbc
June 20, 2011
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?
