(PC) Dubrin et al v. Bonilla
Filing
158
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/3/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Ten Days. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
1:11-cv-01484-AWI-JLT (PC)
DURBIN, et al.,
12
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
14
BONILLA, et al.,
15
(Doc. 156)
Defendants.
10 DAY DEADLINE
16
17
Plaintiffs are state prisoners who were confined in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at
18
the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi. (Doc. 19 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel
19
filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron
20
Prange. (Doc. 155.) However, he did not submit the last known address for either Coronado or
21
Prange. Thus, on January 18, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to submit the last known
22
addresses for them within 10 days. (Doc. 156.) The deadline has lapsed without the information
23
being filed.
24
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel, or
25
of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the
26
Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
27
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
28
1
1
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
2
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
3
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
4
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
5
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
6
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
7
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
8
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
9
Therefore, within 10 days, the Court ORDERS counsel for Plaintiffs’ counsel to show
10
cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Alternatively, counsel may provide the information
11
previously ordered within the same time period.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated:
February 3, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?