(PC) Kasey F. Hoffman v. Pulido ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KASEY F. HOFFMANN, Case No. 1:18-cv-00209-AWI-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CASE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 L. PULIDO, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 22, 2019, the Court issued a screening order requiring Plaintiff to file a first 18 amended complaint or, in the alternative, to file a notice that he wishes to proceed only on the 19 claims found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 27.) The Court granted Plaintiff until December 13, 20 2019, to comply with its order. (See id.) Although the deadline has passed, Plaintiff has failed to 21 file an amended complaint or a notice, or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 23 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 24 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 25 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 26 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 27 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 28 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 1 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 2 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 3 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 4 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 6 of this order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s 7 screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file one of the following three 8 documents: (1) a first amended complaint, (2) a notice that he wishes to proceed only on the 9 claims found cognizable in the Court’s screening order, (Doc. 27), and to seek only compensatory 10 damages for the loss of good-time credits and punitive damages, OR (3) a notice of voluntary 11 dismissal of this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Sheila K. Oberto 14 Dated: December 31, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28