You're viewing Docket Item 16 from the case (PC)Barboza v. Green. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-01914-AWI-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/28/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA





















RUMALDO BARBOZA,





Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY J. GREEN,



Defendant.





Case No.: 1:12-cv-01914 – AWI - JLT

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER

(Doc. 15)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff Rumaldo Barboza (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 30, 2013, the Court

dismissed the complaint in this matter. (Doc. 15). The Court granted Plaintiff 21 days from the date of

service of the order to comply with the July 30, 2013 order. Id. Nonetheless, more than 21 days have

passed and Plaintiff has failed to file a first amended complaint.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute



1

1

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

28



Case 1:12-cv-01914-AWI-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/28/13 Page 2 of 2




an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Plaintiff is advised that this will be the Court’s FINAL order for Plaintiff to file his first

amended complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to file his first amended complaint, the Court will issue

findings and recommendations that this matter be dismissed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order. In the

alternative, within this same 14-day time period, Plaintiff may file his first amended complaint.

1

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

28



IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2013





/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE



2