Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01664/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01664-12/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MIKE L. PARMENTER, No. CIV S-09-1664-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. 

On October 29, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint

for failure to name any individual who was responsible for his alleged constitutional violation,

and providing plaintiff 30 days in which to file an amended complaint. Following that order,

Plaintiff was granted additional time to file his amended complaint. When no amended

complaint was timely filed, the court issued an order to show cause on April 22, 2010. Plaintiff

responded to the order to show cause, indicating he was attempting to obtain the necessary

information to file his amended complaint. The court then discharged the order to show cause,

Case 2:09-cv-01664-CMK Document 38 Filed 01/03/11 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

2

and provided plaintiff an additional 45 days in which to file his amended complaint.

On July 6, 2010, as no amended complaint had been filed, the court issued another

order to show cause requiring plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for

plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered. Plaintiff responded, stating he does

not want his cased dismissed, and indicating he was unsure how to file an amended complaint. 

On October 21, 2010, the court then issued an order providing plaintiff additional time to file his

amended complaint, a copy of the court’s order setting forth the defects in his original complaint,

and a copy of a blank prisoner civil rights complaint. Plaintiff was warned that if no amended

complaint was filed within 30 days, the court would issue an appropriate order dismissing this

action. To date, no amended complaint or further response to the order to show cause has been

received. 

Dismissal has been held to be an appropriate sanction for failure to comply with

an order to file an amended complaint. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

1992). In light of plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as directed, the court finds that

dismissal of this action is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed and the

Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 

DATED: January 3, 2011

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-01664-CMK Document 38 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2