Haack v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/27/2012. Plaintiff's Show Cause Response due by 4/2/2012. (Bradley, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
STEVEN RALPH HAACK,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
)
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

1:12-cv-00098 LJO GSA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

17
18

Following removal from state court in January 2012, this case was set for an Initial

19

Scheduling Conference on March 27, 2012, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 10 of this Court. (See

20

Doc. 2.)

21

On January 25, 2012, Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

22

(“CDCR”) filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 6.) No other named defendants had been served

23

with the summons or complaint.

24

On February 21, 2012, District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill dismissed the action, with

25

prejudice, against CDCR and directed that judgment be entered in its favor against Plaintiff.

26

(Doc. 7.)

27
28

1

1

In light of the foregoing, and because no other named defendant is believed to have been

2

served with the summons and complaint, nor has any other named defendant appeared in this

3

action, the Initial Scheduling Conference of March 27, 2012, was converted to a Status

4

Conference. Moreover, in its minute order, the Court specifically advised that “Plaintiff’s

5

counsel shall address the status of service of the remaining defendants in this matter” on that

6

occasion. (See Doc. 10.)

7
8
9

Nevertheless, on March 27, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff Steven Ralph Haack did not
appear at the Status Conference on behalf of his client.
Local Rule 110 provides that "failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules

10

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

11

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." District courts have the inherent power to

12

control their dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including,

13

where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case." Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th

14

Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute

15

an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v.

16

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik

17

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an

18

order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

19

1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

20

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

21

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

22

1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In

23

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or

24

failure to comply with local rules, the court must consider several factors: (1) the public's interest

25

in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

26

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits;

27
28

2

1

and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779

2

F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

3

Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a written response on or before April 2, 2012, to show

4

cause, if any, why this action should not be dismissed for a failure to follow a Court order.

5

Failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause within the time specified may also result in

6

dismissal of this action.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

March 27, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3