Mendoza v. Macy's Inc. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RENEE C. MENDOZA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01156-DAD-SKO Plaintiff, 10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 MACY’S INC., FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 Defendant. (Doc. 6) 13 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) 16 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on September 4, 2019. 17 (Docs. 2, 3.) 18 On September 20, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed 19 to state any cognizable claims and granting leave until October 11, 2019, for Plaintiff to file an 20 amended complaint. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time in which to file her 21 amended complaint, and the Court granted the request and allowed Plaintiff until November 22, 22 2019, to file her amended complaint. (Docs. 5, 6.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended 23 complaint or requested an additional extension of time in which to do so. 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 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the 11 date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for her failure to comply 12 with the Court’s October 24, 2019 Order, (Doc. 6.), within the specified period of time. The 13 Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to file this statement within fourteen (14) days 14 of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge 15 that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Sheila K. Oberto 18 Dated: December 2, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27