McMaster v. Spearman et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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.,
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
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
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 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 failure to
prosecute and to comply with local rules). Neither the Court, nor Defendants may prepare for
trial absent Plaintiff’s pretrial statement.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the
date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with
the Second Scheduling Order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his pretrial
statement or a notice of voluntary dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 11, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?