Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01281-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE STEVEN MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANDRA PENNYWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01281-MJS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Kyle Steven Martin is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed July 25, 2013 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 5.)

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and dismissed it on August 30, 2013 for 

failure to state a claim, but gave Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by not later 

than September 30, 2013. (ECF No. 7.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff filing 

an amended complaint or requesting 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. 

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 10/28/13 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

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action 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, 53-54 (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 Order requiring that he file an amended 

complaint by not later than September 30, 2013.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either show 

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply 

with the Court’s August 30, 2013 Order, or file an amended complaint; and

2. If Plaintiff fails to show cause or file an amended complaint, the Court will 

recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim and 

failure to prosecute, subject to the “three strikes” provision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(g). Silva v. Di Vittorio, 658 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2011).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 28, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC _Signature- END:

ci4d6

Case 1:13-cv-01281-AWI-MJS Document 8 Filed 10/28/13 Page 2 of 2