Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01581/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01581-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RANDY STOOPS,

Plaintiff,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:16-cv-01581-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 

CLAIM, FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT 

ORDER, AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 7)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

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

On December 12, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to 

state a claim but gave thirty days leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) The thirty-day deadline 

passed without Plaintiff filing either an amended pleading or notice of voluntary 

dismissal, or seeking an extension of time to do so.

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 

Case 1:16-cv-01581-DAD-MJS Document 10 Filed 01/25/17 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

impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or dismissal.” Thompson v. 

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with 

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute, 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 a 

complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure 

to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); 

Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to 

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Within fourteen (14) days of service of this Order, Plaintiff shall file either:

a. File an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, or 

b. Show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim, failure to prosecute, and failure 

to comply with the Court’s order (ECF No. 7); and

2. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the undersigned will recommend 

that the action be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01581-DAD-MJS Document 10 Filed 01/25/17 Page 2 of 2