Opinion
CASE No. 1:13-cv-00160-MJS (PC)
05-31-2013
EDWARD VASQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MERCED COUNTY S.E.R.T. TEAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER
(ECF No. 10)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Edward Vasquez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on February 1, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint was dismissed on February 14, 2013 for failure to state a claim, but Plaintiff was given leave to file a First Amended Complaint by not later than March 20, 2013. (ECF No. 5.) The Court subsequently extended the deadline to April 15, 2013 (ECF No. 8), and then further extended the deadline to May 20, 2013. (ECF No. 10.)
The May 20, 2013 deadline passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended pleading or seeking a further extension of time to do so.
Local Rule 110 provides that "failure 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." District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case]." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Court's Order (ECF No. 10).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall either show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with the Court's Order (ECF No. 10), or file an amended complaint; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, this action shall be dismissed, with prejudice, subject to the "three strikes" provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE