(PC) Quair v. Board of Supervisors ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMMY RICHARD QUAIR, SR., Case No. 1:19-cv-00902-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 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On March 10, 2020, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a first 18 amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 9.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, 19 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s order. 20 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 21 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for 22 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” 23 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 24 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 25 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 26 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 27 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 28 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 2 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the date 4 of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the 5 Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint 6 curing the deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 9) or a notice of voluntary 7 dismissal of this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Sheila K. Oberto 10 Dated: April 16, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28