Reid v. Public Safety Center et al

Filing 38

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with Court Order; Show Cause Response due by 6/21/2013 signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/13/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
LYNETTE REID,

CASE No. 1:09-cv-01200-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
ORDER

12
v.
13

(ECF No. 35)
14

PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER, et al.,
RESPONSE DUE BY JUNE 21, 2013

15
Defendants.
16
/

17
18

Plaintiff Lynette Reid is a former California state prisoner proceeding pro se and
19
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter
20
proceeds on a claim of excessive force against Defendant Johnson. Telephonic Trial
21
Confirmation Hearing is set for June 24, 2013 at 3 PM. (ECF No. 35.) Jury Trial is set
22
for August 6, 2013. (Id.)
23
Plaintiff was ordered to notify the Court by not later than September 13, 2012,
24
whether she consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (Id ) The September 13, 2012
25
deadline passed without Plaintiff notifying the Court whether she consented or not,
26
without seeking an extension of time to do so and without otherwise responding to the
27
Court’s Order.
28
1

1

Plaintiff also was ordered to file her pretrial statement not later than June 3,

2

2013. (Id.) She did not do so. She did not seeking an extension of time to do so or

3

otherwise respond to the Court’s Order.
Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

4
5

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

6

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

7

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

8

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal [of a case].” Thompson v.

9

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

10

on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to

11

comply with local rules. See e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)

12

(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

13

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

14

amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

15

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

16

Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s Order. (ECF No. 35.)

17

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

18

1.

By not later than June 21, 2013, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action

19

should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s Order (ECF

20

No. 35); and
2.

21

If Plaintiff fails to show cause, all scheduled dates shall be vacated and
this action shall be dismissed.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated:
12eob4

June 13, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2