(PC) Shaw v. Sherman ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IRVIN SHAW, Case No.: 1:21-cv-01318 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING 13 v. WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR A FAILURE TO OBEY 14 STUART SHERMAN, Warden, THE COURT ORDERS 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Irvin Shaw is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 I. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 20 On November 23, 2022, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff 21 was afforded 21 days within which to file a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies 22 identified in the order, or, alternatively, to file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Id. at 11.) 23 On December 9, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File First 24 Amended Complaint. (Doc. 11.) On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, 25 extending the deadline for filing the first amended complaint to January 13, 2023. (Doc. 12.) 26 Although the time to file an amended complaint has now passed, Plaintiff has failed to do 27 so. // 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 The Local Rules corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provide that the 3 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 5 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 6 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 7 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 8 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 9 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 10 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 11 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 12 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 13 Here, Plaintiff has failed to comply with this Court’s orders. On November 23, 2022, 14 Plaintiff was directed to file a first amended complaint within 21 days. (Doc. 10.) At Plaintiff’s 15 request, the deadline for filing an amended complaint was extended, and Plaintiff was to file a 16 first amended complaint no later than January 13, 2023. (Doc. 12.) The extended deadline has 17 now passed, and Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint. As a result, Plaintiff’s 18 action is subject to dismissal for failure to obey a court order. 19 III. ORDER 20 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 21 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 22 with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file a first amended 23 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. 24 Failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be 25 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Sheila K. Oberto 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27