Opinion
1:15-cv-01211 DAD MJS HC
03-11-2016
CEDRIC L. DANIELS, Petitioner, v. DAVE DAVEY, Warden, Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On January 25, 2016, the Court granted Petitioner's request to stay the proceeding and required Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty (30) days of the order. (ECF No. 9.)
Over thirty days have passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended petition or a request for an extension.
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 January 25, 2016 Order. The deadline for filing an amended petition in the Order has passed. (ECF No. 9.) Nevertheless, Plaintiff shall be given one final opportunity to file, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order, an amended petition or show cause by that date why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. Failure to respond by this deadline will result in dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 11, 2016
/s/ Michael J . Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE