Opinion
Case No.: 1:12-cv-00757 - JLT (PC)
07-31-2013
LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. CDCR DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW BOARD, et al., Defendant.
FINAL 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. Rodrigues ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before the Magistrate Judge on May 16, 2012. (Doc. 5). On April 15, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court whether he wished to proceed on his cognizable claims or to file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 17). Despite Plaintiff's multiple extensions of time to file his first amended complaint, (Doc. 20, 23), Plaintiff has failed to amend his complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's 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 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).
Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court's FINAL order for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims. Failure to comply with this Order will result in an immediate dismissal of this matter. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not grant any further extensions of time to comply with the Court's order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file an amended complaint or notify the Court whether he wishes to proceed on his cognizable claims within 14 days of service of this order. His failure to comply will result in an order dismissing this without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE