Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992-4/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

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD A. LAWSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHERIFF DONALD YOUNGBLOOD,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0992-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(ECF No. 17)

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT BY AUGUST 25,

2011

Plaintiff Richard A. Lawson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

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

On March 3, 2011, the Magistrate Judge in this matter issued a Screening Order

dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief

could be granted. (Order, ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff was to file his Second Amended

Complaint within thirty days of entry of the Order. (Id.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for an

Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint on May 16, 2011. (Mot., ECF No. 15.)

The Court granted the requested extension on June 14, 2011. (Order, ECF No. 17.)

Pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff was to file his Second Amended Complaint by July 5, 2011.

(Id.) This deadline has passed, and to date 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

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 07/27/11 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

27

28

-2-

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 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 June 14, 2011 Order. The July 5, 2011

deadline has passed. (Order, ECF No. 17.) Nevertheless, the Court will give the Plaintiff

one more opportunity to undertake to pursue this action.

Plaintiff is ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint no later than August 25,

2011. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action for failure to

prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2011 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 07/27/11 Page 2 of 2