Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01888/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01888-3/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

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

GIFT A.Z. DIVINE ALLAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

P.L. VASQUEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1888-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT

ORDER

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE DUE 8/18/10

Plaintiff Gift A.Z. Divine Allah (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June

1, 2010, the Court ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim

and granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint within thirty days. More than thirty days

have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the Court’s

Order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief

may be granted under section 1983. 

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

Local Rules or 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.” 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,

Case 1:09-cv-01888-MJS Document 18 Filed 07/13/10 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

-2-

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); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (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). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause not later than August 18, 2010

why the above-captioned action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure

to respond to this order and/or file an amended complaint by August 18, 2010 will result

in dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2010 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-01888-MJS Document 18 Filed 07/13/10 Page 2 of 2