Werner v. Advance Newhouse Partnership, LLC et al
Filing
5
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 9/24/2013. 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
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
ADVANCE NEWHOUSE PARTNERSHIP, )
)
LLC, a New York limited liability company
)
d/b/a BRIGHTHOUSE NETWORKS; and
)
BRIGHTHOUSE NETWORKS,
)
)
Defendants.
)
PATRICIA WERNER,
Case No.: 1:13-cv-01259 - LJO – JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR HIS FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER
18
19
Patricia Werner (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se in this action for violations of Title VII and
20
the Equal Pay Act against Advance Newhouse Partnership, LLC and Brighthouse Networks. (Doc. 1).
21
On May 28, 2013, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim and dismissed the
22
complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 3). Plaintiff was ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
23
within thirty days of the date of service, or no later than September 18, 2013. (Id. at 8). To date,
24
Plaintiff has failed to comply with or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.
25
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
26
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
27
and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have
28
inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions
1
1
including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
2
(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
3
an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
4
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order
5
requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)
6
(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th
7
Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
8
9
10
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of
this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute and failure comply with
the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint.
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 24, 2013
/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?