From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bobier v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 12, 2013
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)

Opinion

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS

12-12-2013

JON C. BOBIER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER


(ECF No. 15)


FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jon C. Bobier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 3, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 13.)

On October 29, 2013, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff's unsigned and uncaptioned Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 15.) That deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing an amended complaint or requesting an extension of time to do so.

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case]." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order requiring that he file an amended complaint by not later than November 29, 2013.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's October 29, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Bobier v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 12, 2013
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)
Case details for

Bobier v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:JON C. BOBIER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 12, 2013

Citations

CASE No. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013)