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)

Download PDF
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?