Leo Evans v. Madera Police Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LEO EVANS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01803-DAD-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 MADERA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO al., COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 Defendants. (Doc. 8) 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 16 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on January 29, 17 2020, after Plaintiff submitted his prisoner trust account statement. (Docs. 3, 5, 6.) 18 On March 3, 2020, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state 19 any cognizable claims and granting leave until March 24, 2020, for Plaintiff to file an amended 20 complaint. (Doc. 8.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an 21 extension of time in which to do so. 22 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 23 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 24 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 26 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 27 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 1 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 2 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 3 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 4 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 5 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 6 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 7 with local rules). 8 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) 9 days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure 10 to comply with the Court’s March 3, 2020 Order, (Doc. 8), within the specified period of time. 11 The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to file this statement within twenty-one (21) 12 days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court 13 judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Sheila K. Oberto 16 Dated: July 1, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27