(PC) Stuckey v. Nestle Corporation ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00511-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT 14 NESTLE CORPORATION, et al., 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Andre Kenneth Stuckey is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 21 On October 14, 2021, the Court issued a second screening order finding that Plaintiff’s 22 third amended complaint failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. (Doc. 27.) The 23 Court directed Plaintiff to file a fourth amended complaint curing the deficiencies in his pleading 24 or a notice of voluntary dismissal within 21 days (Id. at 9.) Plaintiff was then granted four 25 extensions of time within to file his fourth amended complaint. (Docs. 30, 32, 34, 36.) 26 In its April 5, 2022 Order—the most recent order granting Plaintiff an extension of time— 27 the Court provided Plaintiff with an additional 90 days from the date of service of the order, 28 within which to file the fourth amended complaint. (Doc. 26 at 2-3.) Plaintiff was cautioned that 1 his failure to file an amended complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be 2 dismissed for a failure to prosecute and a failure to obey court orders. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff has 3 nonetheless failed to file a fourth amended complaint, and the time to do so has now passed.1 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 6 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 7 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 8 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 9 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 10 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 11 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 12 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 13 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 14 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 15 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 16 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 5, 2022, order. Plaintiff did not 17 file a fourth amended complaint within 90 days of service of that order, and in failing to comply 18 with the Court’s order, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action. 19 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 20 For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, 21 within 21 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his 22 failure to comply with the Court’s April 5, 2022, order. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 28 1 The period from 4/5/22 to 7/11/22 equals 97 days. 1 WARNING: Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that 2 this action be dismissed for failure to obey court orders and for a failure to prosecute. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: July 11, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28