From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faultry v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 13, 2013
1:12-cv-01176-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013)

Opinion

1:12-cv-01176-SAB (PC)

02-13-2013

CHARLES FAULTRY, Plaintiff, v. LOPEZ, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT

ORDER


(ECF Nos. 3 & 4.)


(THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE)

Plaintiff Charles Faultry ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed this action on July 18, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On July 19, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 2.) On September 4, 2012, the Court issued a second order for Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 4.) On October 9, 2012, the Court granted a thirty-day extension of time to consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 6.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not complied with, or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

On August 1, 2012, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within forty-five (45) days. (ECF No. 3.) On November 28, 2012, the Court granted a thirty-day extension of time to submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 8.) The thirty-day period has now expired, and Plaintiff has not complied with, or otherwise responded to the Court's order.

Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or 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." Further, the failure of Plaintiff to prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order, namely, failing to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff either Consent to or Decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Faultry v. Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 13, 2013
1:12-cv-01176-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013)
Case details for

Faultry v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES FAULTRY, Plaintiff, v. LOPEZ, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 13, 2013

Citations

1:12-cv-01176-SAB (PC) (E.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2013)