From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Robinson v. Kitt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2016
1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)

Opinion

1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT (PC)

03-15-2016

SAMUEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. KITT, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Docs. 30, 32, 34) 30-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 30) and thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for more time to file his opposition. (Doc. 31.) The Court granted the extension of time and issued the second informational order informing Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion to dismiss and of duty to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition. (Docs. 32, 34.) However, Plaintiff has filed neither.

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, within 30 days , Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court's order and for his failure to prosecute this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15 , 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Robinson v. Kitt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 15, 2016
1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)
Case details for

Robinson v. Kitt

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. KITT, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 15, 2016

Citations

1:14-cv-01525-DAD-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2016)