Solesbee v. County of Inyo et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Matter Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Follow the Court's Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/11/2013. 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

TANYA SOLESBEE,
Plaintiff.

12
13
14
15

v.
COUNTY OF INYO, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1548 AWI JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE MATTER
SHOULD NOT BE DIMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FOLLOW THE COURT’S
ORDERS

16
17

Tanya Solesbee initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 24, 2013. (Doc. 1).

18

The same day, the Court issued civil case documents and an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

19

Conference. (Doc. 6) The Court explained a scheduling conference could not be held until the

20

defendant was served with the summons and complaint. Id. at 1. Therefore, the Court instructed:

21

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

22

directed to “file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service.”

23

Id. at 1-2. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file proofs of service, and has not complied with the Court’s

24

orders regarding service.

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.” LR 110. “District courts have inherent

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

comply with a court order).

7

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

8

1.

Within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why the action should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s orders, or in the alternative, to

9
10

file proof of service indicating the defendant has been served with the documents

11

required by the Court’s orders.

12

Failure to respond appropriately to this order will result in a recommendation that the matter

13

be dismissed.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE