Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01705/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01705-4/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

LEROY HAWKINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-1705–MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER AND FAILURE TO STATE A

CLAIM

(ECF No. 15)

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT BY APRIL 27, 2012

Plaintiff Leroy Hawkins, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on February 27, 2012, and found that it

failed to state a cognizable claim, but gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended

complaint on or before March 31, 2012. (ECF No. 15.) March 31, 2012, has passed

without Plaintiff having filed an amended complaint or 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

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01705-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 04/16/12 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

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

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 February 27, 2012, Order. He will be

given one more opportunity, until April 27, 2012, and no later, to file an amended

complaint or show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

a Court order and failure to state a claim. Failure to meet this deadline will result in

dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01705-LJO-MJS Document 17 Filed 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2