IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2011
MIKE L. PARMENTER,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action.
On October 29, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint for failure to name any individual who was responsible for his alleged constitutional violation, and providing plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. Following that order, Plaintiff was granted additional time to file his amended complaint. When no amended complaint was timely filed, the court issued an order to show cause on April 22, 2010. Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause, indicating he was attempting to obtain the necessary information to file his amended complaint. The court then discharged the order to show cause, and provided plaintiff an additional 45 days in which to file his amended complaint.
On July 6, 2010, as no amended complaint had been filed, the court issued another order to show cause requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint as ordered. Plaintiff responded, stating he does not want his cased dismissed, and indicating he was unsure how to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2010, the court then issued an order providing plaintiff additional time to file his amended complaint, a copy of the court's order setting forth the defects in his original complaint, and a copy of a blank prisoner civil rights complaint. Plaintiff was warned that if no amended complaint was filed within 30 days, the court would issue an appropriate order dismissing this action. To date, no amended complaint or further response to the order to show cause has been received.
Dismissal has been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992). In light of plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint as directed, the court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed and the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.