Hopton v. Fresno County Health Human ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 JOSE LEON HOPTON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-NONE-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 FRESNO COUNTY HUMAN HEALTH FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO SYSTEM, et al., COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 Defendants. (Doc. 14) 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On January 28, 2020, 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 February 20, 17 2020, after Plaintiff submitted his prisoner trust account statement. (Docs. 3, 4, 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. 9.) Plaintiff requested, and the Court granted, an extension of time to file the 21 amended complaint, and Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint (“FAC”) on May 11, 2020. 22 (Docs. 10, 11, 12.) The Court issued a second screening order on June 5, 2020, finding that the 23 FAC failed to state a claim and granting Plaintiff until June 26, 2020, to file a second amended 24 complaint. (Doc. 14.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint or requested an 25 extension of time in which to do so. 26 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 27 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 1 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 2 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 3 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 4 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 5 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 6 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 7 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 8 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 9 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 10 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 11 with local rules). 12 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) 13 days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure 14 to comply with the Court’s June 5, 2020 Order, (Doc. 14), within the specified period of time. 15 The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to file this statement within twenty-one (21) 16 days of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court 17 judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto 20 Dated: July 20, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27