From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robertson v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB

12-02-2015

CHARLES F. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Charles F. Robertson filed this action on March 14, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) On December 22, 2014, Plaintiff's second amended complaint was screened and Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he was willing to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable within thirty days. (ECF No. 17.) On January 23, 2015, the action was stayed pending resolution of motions to dismiss in the related cases of Jackson v. California, No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, and Smith v. Schwarzenegger, No. 1:14-cv-00060-LJO-SAB. On October 19, 2015, the stay was lifted and Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable in the December 22, 2014 screening order within fourteen days. More than fourteen days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the December 22, 2014 order.

Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure 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." The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the October 19, 2015 order. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2 , 2015

/s/_________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Robertson v. Doe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 2, 2015
Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)
Case details for

Robertson v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES F. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 2, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:14-cv-00364-SAB (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)