From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolinski v. Stoll

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC)

06-01-2015

KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. STOLL, 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

(Doc. 9)

30 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, Krzysztof F. Wolinski, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 8, 2015, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to submit the proper application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee within 45 days -- which enclosed the proper form for Plaintiff's use. (Doc. 9.) More than 45 days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court's Order.

While Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with his Complaint in this action, it was on the wrong form.

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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 30 days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1 , 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Wolinski v. Stoll

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 1, 2015
Case No. 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)
Case details for

Wolinski v. Stoll

Case Details

Full title:KRZYSZTOF F. WOLINSKI, Plaintiff, v. STOLL, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 1, 2015

Citations

Case No. 1:15-cv-00468-AWI-JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 1, 2015)