From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bobier v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 18, 2013
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS

2013-09-18

JON C. BOBIER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant.


ORDER TO FILE CONSENT OR DECLINE

FORM OR SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE


(ECF NOS. 7 & 9)


THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jon C. Bobier is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed October 3, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) On June 3, 2013, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either consent to or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction within thirty days. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff failed to comply, and on July 23, 2013, the Court issued a second order requiring Plaintiff to file a response within thirty days. (ECF No. 9.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court's orders.

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).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either complete and return the Order Re Consent or Request for Reassignment, a copy of which is attached hereto, or show cause in writing as to why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file the requested documents, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Bobier v. Unknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 18, 2013
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2013)
Case details for

Bobier v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:JON C. BOBIER, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 18, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00845-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2013)