Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01710-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VALENTINE E. UNDERWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:11-CV-01710-LJO-MJS (PC)

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH COURT ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO CONSENT OR DECLINE

JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(ECF No. 6)

RESPONSE DUE BY MAY 25, 2012

Plaintiff Valentine E. Underwood is a former California state prisoner proceeding pro

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

The Court, on December 5, 2011, ordered Plaintiff to either consent or decline

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction by January 9, 2012. (Sec. Order re Consent, ECF No. 4.)

January 9, 2012 passed without Plaintiff either consenting or declining or filing a request

for an extension of time to do so.

The Court, on April 19, 2012, issued an Order to Show Cause requiring that the

Clerk’s Office send Plaintiff a form Order Regarding Consent or Request for Reassignment

and that, by not later than May 4, 2012 Plaintiff consent or decline Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with

-1-

Case 1:11-cv-01710-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 3
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

a Court order. (Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 6.) 

Plaintiff filed a Response to Order to Show Cause on May 1, 2012, notifying the

Court “that he declines Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on this matter.” (Resp. to Order to

Show Cause, ECF No. 7 at 1.) However, Plaintiff failed to complete and return the Court’s

form Order Regarding Consent or Request for Reassignment. 

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. 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 provided the Court with a completed form Order Regarding Consent

or Request for Reassignment. The Clerk’s Office is ORDERED to send Plaintiff another

Order Regarding Consent or Request for Reassignment.

Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity, until May 25, 2012, and no later, to

complete and return the form Order Regarding Consent or Request for

Reassignment or show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to

comply with a Court order. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that:

1. The Clerk’s Office resend an Order Regarding Consent or Request for

Reassignment to Plaintiff, 

2. By not later than May 25, 2012, Plaintiff is to return the Order Regarding

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-01710-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/04/12 Page 2 of 3
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

Consent or Request for Reassignment to the Court, and indicate whether or

not he consents to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, by either checking

the “Consent” OR “Decline” area of the form, and

3. Failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 1:11-cv-01710-LJO-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/04/12 Page 3 of 3