Leo Evans v. Madera Police Department ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LEO EVANS, Case No. 1:19-cv-01803-DAD-SKO 9 Plaintiff, SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 10 DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 11 COURT’S ORDER MADERA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 12 (Docs. 8, 12) Defendants. 13 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 On December 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendants. (Doc. 16 1.) Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on January 29, 17 2020, after Plaintiff submitted his prisoner trust account statement. (Docs. 3, 5, 6.) 18 On March 3, 2020, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to 19 state any cognizable claims and granting leave until March 24, 2020, for Plaintiff to file an 20 amended complaint. (Doc. 8.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline, and 21 on July 1, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed 22 for his failure to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 10.) 23 Plaintiff filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of time on July 16, 2020, due to his 24 incarcerated status and the restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. (Doc. 11.) On July 25 23, 2020, the Court discharged the order to show cause, granted the motion, and ordered Plaintiff 26 to file either his amended complaint of a notice of voluntary dismissal by no later than October 14, 27 2020. (See Doc. 12.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an 28 extension of time in which to do so. 1 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 3 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 4 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 5 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 6 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 7 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 8 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 9 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 10 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 11 Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 12 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 13 to comply with local rules). 14 Accordingly, Plaintiff is again ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days 15 of the date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to 16 be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s July 23, 2020, Order and for 17 failure to prosecute his case. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an 18 amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff 19 that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the 20 Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its 21 entirety. 22 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 23 on the docket for this matter. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Sheila K. Oberto 26 Dated: October 28, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28