(PC) Gonzales v. United States ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTONIO GONZALES, Case No. 1:21-cv-01053-ADA-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 14 UNITED STATES, et al., (Doc. 11) 15 Defendants. 16 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Antonio Gonzalez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil action asserting a claim under the Federal Torts Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671– 20 2680. On November 11, 2022, the Court issued a screening order finding that Plaintiff’s 21 complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 11.) The Court directed 22 Plaintiff, within thirty days, to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his 23 pleading. (Id.) The Court warned Plaintiff: “If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the 24 Court will recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to 25 prosecute, and failure to obey a court order.” (Id. at 11) (emphasis in original). 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide that 27 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 28 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 1 | L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 2 || power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 3 | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on 4 | aparty’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 5 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with 6 | acourt order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 7 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 | 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing, within twenty-one 10 | (21) days from the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his 11 | failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure to comply with the Court’s order. 12 | Alternatively, within that same time frame, Plaintiff may file a first amended complaint curing the 13 | deficiencies identified in the Court’s screening order (Doc. 11) or a notice of voluntary dismissal 14 | of this case. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case 15 | be dismissed for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and to obey a court order. 16 | IT IS □□ ORDERED. | Dated: _December 19, 2022 | br Pr 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28