McMaster v. Spearman et al

Filing 141

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 7/11/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Twenty One Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DANA McMASTER,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01407-AWI-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

SPEARMAN, et al.,
(Doc. 138)

13

Defendants.
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

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

Plaintiff, Dana McMaster, is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, filed January 3, 2013, against Defendants Sedwick,
Espitia and Pease of failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and against
Defendant Carlson for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. The events giving rise to
Plaintiff’s claims allegedly occurred between March 7, 2009, and April 20, 2009, at Pleasant
Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California.
On April 13, 2017, the Second Scheduling Order issued and scheduled this action for trial
before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, beginning on November 14, 2017. (Doc. 138.) That
order required Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement on or before July 3, 2017. (Id.) Despite lapse
of more than a week beyond the deadline, Plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the

28
1

1

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

2

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

3

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

8

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

9

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

10

prosecute and to comply with local rules). Neither the Court, nor Defendants may prepare for

11

trial absent Plaintiff’s pretrial statement.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the

12
13

date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with

14

the Second Scheduling Order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his pretrial

15

statement or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 11, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.