Roberson v. County of Kern et al
Filing
52
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
ANTHONY DEVON ROBERSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
Case No.: 1:10-cv-01371 -- JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF 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withdrawn.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. 41). 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, Plaintiff Anthony DeVon Roberson has 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. 41 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, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of
8
this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to follow the Court’s Order, or in
9
the alternative, to complete and file the form indicating whether he consents to or declines 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?