Leal v. Community Hospital of Fresno ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOSE LEAL, Case No. 1:19-cv-01266-AWI-SKO 7 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 8 FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO v. COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S 9 ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF FRESNO, STATE A CLAIM 10 Defendant. (Doc. 4) 11 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 12 13 14 Plaintiff, Jose Leal, is a prisoner in the custody of Wasco State Prison. On September 11, 15 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 16 1983”) against Defendant Community Hospital of Fresno in which he seeks to proceed on a claim 17 based on the removal of his infant daughter from his custody. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which was granted on 19 September 16, 2019. (Docs. 2 & 3.) 20 On September 24, 2019, the undersigned issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff failed 21 to state any cognizable claims and granted Plaintiff thirty days leave to file an amended complaint 22 curing the pleading deficiencies identified in the order. (Doc. 4.) Although more than the allowed 23 time has passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s 24 screening order. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 26 a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 27 of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may 28 1 impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 2 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s 3 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 4 See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 5 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 6 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 7 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 9 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 10 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s September 24, 2019 screening order, 11 by not filing an amended complaint within the specified period of time and for failure to state a cognizable claim. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended 12 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails 13 to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will 14 recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 15 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 16 on the docket for this matter. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 22, 2019 /s/ . 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28