Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00781-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.A. RIOS, et al.

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-0781-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT

ORDER

(ECF No. 45)

PLAINTIFF MUST FILE FOURTH

AMENDED COMPLAINT BY SEPTEMBER

13, 2011

Plaintiff Donte Rolando Harris (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Third Amended Complaint on May 18, 2011.

(Mot., ECF No. 44.) On June 14, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion. (Order, ECF

No. 45.) Plaintiff was to file his Fourth Amended Complaint by July 20, 2011. This

deadline has passed, and to date Plaintiff has not filed a Fourth 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

power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 46 Filed 08/17/11 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-

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, even though the July

20, 2011 deadline contained in the Order has passed. (Order, ECF No. 45.) Accordingly,

Plaintiff shall file a Fourth Amended Complaint no later than September 13, 2011, or show

cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order

and failure to state a claim. Plaintiff is hereby on notice that failure to meet this deadline

will result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2011 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00781-MJS Document 46 Filed 08/17/11 Page 2 of 2