Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Luis V. Rodriguez v. California Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitations et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 10, 2013

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS ET AL.,
DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER (Doc. 17).

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As is required, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) on April 15, 2015. (Doc. 17). Plaintiff was granted 21 days to notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file a first amended complaint. Id. More than 21 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's April 15, 2013, order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 4 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 6 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within 14 days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court's order. In the alternative, within this same 14-day period, Plaintiff may notify the Court that he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims or file an amended complaint.

Failure to comply with this order SHALL result in dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130510

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.