Hines v. Yousseff, et al

Filing 26

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendants Lynn Carmichael and Barbara Newkirk Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and Obey the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/14/2014. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DARNELL T. HINES,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
ASHRAFE E. YOUSEFF, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00357 - AWI - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS
LYNN CARMICHAEL AND BARBARA NEWKIRK
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND OBEY THE
COURT’S ORDER

16

Darnell Hines (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action against Defendants Ashrafe Youseff, Joshua

17

Garza, Godwin Ugueze, Lynn Carmichael, and Barbara Newkirk on March 12, 2013. (Doc.1.) The

18

Court issued summons for the defendants on March 13, 2013. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff filed proofs of service

19

as to Ashrafe Youseff, Joshua Garza, and Godwin Ugueze (Docs. 6-8), but to date has not filed proof of

20

service for defendants Lynn Carmichael and Barbara Newkirk.

21

On March 13, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference,”

22

which set forth obligations for the parties. (Doc. 4.) The Order informed Plaintiff that he was to

23

“diligently pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom

24

plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims.” (Id. at 1.) Also, Plaintiff was informed that he must “promptly

25

file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service.” (Id. at 1-2.)

26

The Court cautioned that if Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order and Rule 4 of the Federal

27

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may impose sanctions “including the dismissal of unserved

28

defendants.” (Id. at 2.)
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

9

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute

10
11

and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service

12

of this Order why defendants Lynn Carmichael and Barbara Newkirk should not be dismissed for his

13

failure to prosecute his claims and his failure to obey the Court’s Order.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 14, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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