(PC) Castillo v. Ulit ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER CASTILLO, Case No. 1:20-cv-01458-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 14 WAYNE ULIT, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 2, 2021, the Court issued a screening order directing Plaintiff to file a third 18 amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading or a notice of voluntary dismissal 19 within 21 days. (Doc. 19.) Although more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to 20 comply with the screening order. 21 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 22 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 23 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 24 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 25 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 26 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 27 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 28 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 1 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 2 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 3 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 5 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 6 comply with the Court’s screening order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a 7 third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified in the screening order or a notice of 8 voluntary dismissal of this action. Failure to comply with this order will result in a 9 recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and to obey court 10 orders. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: January 27, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28