Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00375/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00375-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

 

On March 23, 2016, the Court ordered Petitioner to amend his petition within thirty days of the 

date of service of the order to amend. (Doc. 4). The order was based upon the Court’s preliminary 

screening of the petition, which appeared to contain no exhausted claims and several claims that failed 

to articulate cognizable federal habeas claims. Almost sixty days have passed, but Petitioner has 

failed to do to so or otherwise respond. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” District Courts have the inherent power to control 

their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where 

appropriate...dismissal of a case. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A 

court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to 

obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-

MELVIN DUKES,

 Petitioner,

v.

D. DAVEY, Warden, et al.,

Respondents.

) 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00375-JLT 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

ORDER DIRECTING THAT A RESPONSE BE 

FILED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/20/16 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

54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 

1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992)(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply 

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal 

Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order); 

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)(dismissal for lack of prosecution and 

failure to comply with local rules). 

 ORDER

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS: 

 1. Within 30 days Petitioner SHALL show cause in writing why the Petition should not 

be dismissed for Petitioner’s failure to obey the Court’s order to file an amended petition. 

Petitioner may satisfy the Court’s Order to Show Cause by filing an amended petition 

that complies with the Court’s requirements specified in the March 23, 2016 order to 

amend.

 Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a 

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 20, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

 

Case 1:16-cv-00375-LJO-JLT Document 5 Filed 05/20/16 Page 2 of 2