Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02264/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02264-3/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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE SALAZAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

SULLIVAN, et al.

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-2264-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(ECF No. 12)

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE AMENDED

COMPLAINT BY MARCH 16, 2012

Plaintiff Eddie Salazar (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on December 5, 2011,

found that it failed to state a cognizable claim, and Plaintiff was given leave to file a second

amended complaint. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time on

December 21, 2011, that the Court granted on January 4, 2012. (ECF Nos. 12 & 13.)

Plaintiff was to file his second amended complaint by February 7, 2012. (Id.) The

February 7, 2012 deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a second amended

complaint or a request for an extension.

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

Case 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS Document 16 Filed 03/02/12 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

-2-

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

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 January 4, 2012 Order, even though the

February 7, 2012 deadline in the Order has passed. (ECF No. 13.) Accordingly, no later

than March 16, 2012, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint or show cause to

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: March 1, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-02264-AWI-MJS Document 16 Filed 03/02/12 Page 2 of 2