Mwasi v. Corcoran State Prison

Full title: KING MWASI, Plaintiff, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 14, 2015

Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 14, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cv-00695-JLT (PC)

07-14-2015

KING MWASI, Plaintiff, v. CORCORAN STATE PRISON, Defendant.

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. 49)

30-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, King Mwasi, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 27, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion and granted him leave to file a third amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff's third amended complaint was due on or before June 26, 2015. Id. Despite lapse of more than the allowed time, Plaintiff has not filed a third amended complaint.

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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE