(PS) Harp v. The Modesto Gospel Mission ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LEWIS WAYNE HARP, III, Case No. 1:23-cv-00718-ADA-SKO 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL 12 THE MODESTO GOSPEL MISSION and (Doc. 10) 13 HEAD OF SECURITY FOR THE MGM, TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 14 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 15 16 17 On May 10, 2023, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in 18 this action. (Docs. 1, 2.) 19 On May 17, 2023, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state 20 any cognizable federal claims and granting leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 21 thirty days. (Doc. 10.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or requested an 22 extension of time in which to do so. 23 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 24 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 25 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 26 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 28 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 1 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 2 to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, 3 e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply 4 with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 5 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 6 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 8 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 9 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his 10 case. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, a 11 statement indicating he stands on his original complaint, or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The 12 Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the 13 date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to a presiding district court judge that this 14 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 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: June 23, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28