Okoroanyanwu v. MV Transportation, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KIZITO OKOROANYANWU, Case No. 1:20-cv-00584-AWI-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 Defendants. (Doc. 5) 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On April 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) 16 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on April 28, 2020. 17 (Docs. 2, 3.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 on May 19, 2020. 18 (Doc. 4.) 19 On July 31, 2020, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s amended complaint 20 failed to state any cognizable claims and granting leave until August 21, 2020, for Plaintiff to file 21 a second amended complaint. (Doc. 5.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a second amended complaint 22 or requested an extension of time in which to do so. 23 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 24 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 25 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 26 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 1 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 2 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 3 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 4 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 5 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 7 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 8 with local rules). 9 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) 10 days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure 11 to comply with the Court’s Order within the specified period of time. The Court further 12 CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to file this statement within twenty-one (21) days of the date 13 of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this 14 action be dismissed, in its entirety. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Sheila K. Oberto 17 Dated: August 25, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27