Anglin v. Alrowhany

Filing 17

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Her Failure to Appear at the Scheduling Conference and Failure to Comply With the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/17/2014. 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

DEBRA ANGLIN,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
HIFDHUULA A. ALROWHANY,
Defendants

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01357 - LJO - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
HER FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS

On March 31, 2014, the Court issued an order granting the parties’ stipulation to continue the

18

initial Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 12.) The Court Ordered the parties to file a status report no later

19

than June 2, 2014, as well as “an amended joint scheduling report, as required by the Court’s order

20

setting mandatory scheduling conference.” (Doc. 12 at 2, citing Doc. 4 at 3-8.) In the “Order Setting

21

Mandatory Scheduling Conference,” the parties were ordered to appear for a formal Scheduling

22

Conference.” (Doc. 4 at 1.) The Court explained: “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is

23

mandatory upon each party not represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2,

24

emphasis in original.) However, Plaintiff Debra Anglin failed to comply with the Court’s order to file a

25

joint status report and an amended joint scheduling report, and did not appear at the Scheduling

26

Conference held on June 16, 2014.

27
28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

11

this Order why sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed for her

12

failure to appear at the Court’s Scheduling Conference and failure to comply with the Court’s orders.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 17, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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