Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01710-1/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

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

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALES, et al.

Defendants.

 

/

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-1710-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(ECF No. 4)

PLAINTIFF MUST RESPOND BY MAY 4,

2012

Plaintiff Valentine E. Underwood (“Plaintiff”) is a former California state prisoner

proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Court, on December 5, 2011, ordered Plaintiff to either consent or decline

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction January 9, 2012. (ECF No. 4.) January 9, 2012, has passed

without Plaintiff either consenting or declining or filing a request for an extension of time

to do so.

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure 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 based on a party’s

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01710-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 04/19/12 Page 1 of 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

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, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for

noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint);

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

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s December 5, 2011, Order. The Clerk’s

Office is ORDERED to send Plaintiff another order regarding consent or request for

reassignment. 

Plaintiff will be given one more opportunity, until May 4, 2012, and no later, to

consent or decline Magistrate Judge jurisdiction or show cause why this case should not

be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order. Failure to meet this deadline will

result in dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01710-LJO-MJS Document 6 Filed 04/19/12 Page 2 of 2