Bergman v. Cnty. of Kern

Full title: CHAD RANDALL BERGMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 9, 2015

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01319 - TLN - JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2015)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01319 - TLN - JLT

12-09-2015

CHAD RANDALL BERGMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF KERN, Defendant.

Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

Chad Bergman initiated this action against the County of Kern by filing a complaint on August 28, 2015, alleging employees of the County violated his civil rights by executing an unlawful arrest, using excessive force in the course of the arrest and failing to provide medical care in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. (Doc. 1) The Court granted the County's motion to dismiss, and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of service. (Doc. 16 at 12) To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court's order.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure 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 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 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure comply with the Court's order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE