Taylor v. PM Realty Group et al

Filing 23

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/4/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LOWELL TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
PM REALTY GROUP, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00123 - AWI - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

16
17

Defendant PM Realty Group seeks terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Lowell Taylor.

18

Defendant asserts Plaintiff failed to attend a properly noticed deposition, and has resisted discovery.

19

Review of the Court’s docket indicates Plaintiff has not filed any documents in this action since its

20

removal to the federal court, and appears to have abandoned the litigation. However, in light of

21

information that makes it appear Plaintiff’s counsel is not eligible to practice law currently, the Court

22

hereby informs Plaintiff that such a failure to prosecute may result in the issuance of sanctions,

23

including dismissal of the action.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

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

3

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

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

5

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

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

8

1.

Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

9
10

Plaintiff SHALL to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this

2.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve this Order via United States mail upon Plaintiff at the
following address:

11

Lowell Taylor
1411 S. Divisadero St. #8
Visalia, CA 93277

12
13
14

3.

If Plaintiff desires to continue pro se in this litigation, he SHALL file a substitution of
attorney within fourteen days of the date of service of this order.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 4, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2