Guron et al v. Aytes et al

Filing 41

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/18/2011. Show Cause Response due by 11/2/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SARABJIT GURON and
KARAM SINGH GURON,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL AYTES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00867 -- JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FAILURE TO OBEY THE
COURT’S ORDER

17

On September 14, 2011, the Court issued its Order of Reassignment, in which the Court

18

informed the parties that the assignment of the action to Senior U.S. District Judge Wanger was

19

withdrawn. (Doc. 39). The parties were ordered “to affirmatively indicate whether they consent to

20

or decline the consent of the U.S. Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 USC § 636 (c) . . . WITHIN 30

21

DAYS OF THIS ORDER.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). Consequently, the parties were to file

22

the form attached to the order, indicating their consent or decline no later than October 14, 2011. To

23

date, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s Order.

24

The parties were warned: “Failure to timely comply with this order will result in an Order to

25

Show Cause and may result in sanctions.” (Doc. 39 at 2). The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed.

26

R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court

27

may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent

28

power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in
1

1

exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v.

2

Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action

3

based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute an action, or failure to comply

4

with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for

5

failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service,

6

833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service

8

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to follow the Court’s Order, or

9

in the alternative, to complete and file the form indicating whether they consent to or decline the

10

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: October 18, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2