From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martinez v. Tapia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 3, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2103-LJO-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2103-LJO-MJS (PC) ECF No. 8

07-03-2012

RONALD MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. P. TAPIA, et al. Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM


AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint on May 24, 2012, and found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint on or before June 25, 2012. (ECF No. 8.) June 25, 2012, has passed without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or a request for an 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 May 24, 2012, Order. He will be given fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order, and no later, to file an amended complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Martinez v. Tapia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jul 3, 2012
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2103-LJO-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Martinez v. Tapia

Case Details

Full title:RONALD MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. P. TAPIA, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 3, 2012

Citations

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-2103-LJO-MJS (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 3, 2012)