Harris v. Bear Valley Community Services District, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/4/2013. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES )
DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
KAREN HARRIS,

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01664 - LJO - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

18

Karen Harris (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action by filing a complaint on October 11, 2012.

19

(Doc. 1). The same day, the Court issued civil case documents and an Order Setting Mandatory

20

Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 5). The Court explained a scheduling conference could not be held

21

until the defendants were served with the summons and complaint. Id. at 1. Therefore, the Court

22

instructed: “plaintiff[] shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint . . .” Id. Further,

23

Plaintiff was directed to “file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a

24

record of service.” Id. at 1-2. Although summons were issued on October 11, 2012 (Docs. 3-4),

25

Plaintiff has not filed proof of service.

26

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

27

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

28

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent
1

1

power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including

2

dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

3

1986). A court may dismiss an action based upon a party’s failure to obey a court order, failure to

4

prosecute an action, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

5

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

6

complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

7

comply with a court order).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service

8
9

of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the

10

Court’s Order, or in the alternative, to file a proof of service indicating the defendants have been

11

served with the documents required by the Court’s order.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated:

January 4, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2