Contreras v. Mote ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KIM CONTRERAS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00366-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 CAROLINE MOTE, et al., FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 Defendants. (Doc. 14) 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) 16 On April 30, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 17 4.) On July 13, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, granted Plaintiff leave to 18 file an amended complaint within 21 days of the date of service of the order, and warned Plaintiff 19 that failure to file an amended complaint would lead to dismissal of the case. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff 20 failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline and has not responded to the Court’s order to 21 date. Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and 22 associated delays in mailing, the Court will not dismiss the case at this time and will instead direct 23 Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed. 24 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 25 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 26 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 27 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 1 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 2 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 3 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 4 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 5 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 6 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 7 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 8 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 9 with local rules). 10 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) 11 days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure 12 to comply with the Court’s July 13, 2020 Order, (Doc. 20), within the specified period of time. 13 Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff 14 that, if he fails to file this statement or an amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of the 15 date of service of this Order, the Court may dismiss this action in its entirety. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Sheila K. Oberto 19 Dated: August 13, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27