Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00309-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Gregory Adonis Murphy (“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 April 3, 2013, the Court

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 4) and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. 11). 

Plaintiff was given 21 days from the date of service of the order, or until April 24, 2013, to comply 

with the April 3, 2013, order. Id. More than 21 days have passed but Plaintiff has failed to amend his

complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 

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

GREGORY ADONIS MURPHY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

J. CLARK KELSO,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-00309 – JLT (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

(Doc. 11).

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

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 an amended 

complaint or otherwise respond to the April 3, 2013, order. Should Plaintiff fail to comply with this 

order, the Court will issue findings and recommendations that this matter be dismissed. Accordingly, 

Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen 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, 

Plaintiff may file an amended complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

Case 1:12-cv-00309-LJO-JLT Document 12 Filed 05/03/13 Page 2 of 2