(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE CONCEPCION, Case No. 1:18-cv-01743-LJO-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND TO 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PROSECUTE THIS ACTION CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATON, et al., (Doc. 11) 16 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 On April 9, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s granted her leave to file a first amended 19 complaint. At her request, the Court later granted her additional time to respond to the screening 20 order. (Docs. 10, 11.) Several weeks beyond that extension of time have passed and Plaintiff has 21 failed to file an amended complaint, or to otherwise respond to the Court’s Order. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or 23 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 24 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 25 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 26 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 27 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 28 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 1 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 2 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 3 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 4 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 5 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause within 21 days of the date of 7 service of this order why this action should not be dismissed for her failure both to comply with 8 the Court’s order and to prosecute this action. 9 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order in the time provided will result in a 10 recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice based on her failure to obey 11 the court’s order, to prosecute this action, and for failure to state a claim. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: August 21, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28