Leal v. Kings County Sheriff ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOSE REYMUNDO LEAL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01381-NONE-SKO 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 8 FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO v. COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S 9 ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO KINGS COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., STATE A CLAIM 10 Defendants. (Doc. 5) 11 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 12 13 14 Plaintiff, Jose Reymundo Leal, is a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison. On 15 October 2, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 16 against Defendants Kings County Sheriff, Kings County Probation, and a Kings County probation 17 officer named “Mazuka.” (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on October 7, 2019. (Docs. 2, 3.) 19 On November 21, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 20 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff twenty-one days leave to file an amended 21 complaint curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 5.) Although more than 22 the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond 23 to the Court’s screening order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 25 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 26 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District 27 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, 28 1 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 2 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 3 See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 4 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 5 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 6 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 8 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 9 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s November 21, 2019 screening order, 10 by not filing an amended complaint within the specified period of time and for failure to state 11 a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails 12 to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will 13 recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 14 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 15 on the docket for this matter. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ . 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28