Bussiere v. Kokor et al

Filing 115

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's orders 112 , 113 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/7/2017. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR T. BUSSIERE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No. 1:13-cv-01565-SKO (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS TIGGS-BROWN, (Docs. 112, 113) 15 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff, Arthur T. Bussiere, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 12), filed on June 2, 2014. Plaintiff’s only remaining claim is against Defendant Tiggs-Brown for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serous medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 23 24 25 26 On July 17, 2017, the Second Scheduling Order issued and scheduled this action for trial before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on February 27, 2018. (Doc. 108.) Subsequently, Defendants consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction and the action was reassigned to the undersigned.1 (Docs. 110, 111.) 27 28 1 Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction near the action’s inception. (See Doc. 5.) 1 1 On September 20, 2017, an order issued requiring the parties to file statements, within 2 twenty-one (21) days, indicating whether a settlement conference would be beneficial. Although 3 Defendants filed a response (Doc. 114), Plaintiff failed to do so. An Amended Second 4 Scheduling Order issued on September 20, 2017, which preserved all pretrial deadlines and the 5 trial date, but rescheduled all matters to the undersigned’s calendar. (See Doc. 113.) Both the 6 Second Scheduling Order and the Amended Second Scheduling Order required Plaintiff to file his 7 pretrial statement on or before October 27, 2017. (See Docs. 108, 113.) Despite twice receiving 8 notice of this deadline, Plaintiff has not filed his pretrial statement. 9 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 10 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 11 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 12 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 13 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 14 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 15 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 16 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 17 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 18 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 19 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 20 prosecute and to comply with local rules). Plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s order that 21 required a statement regarding whether a settlement conference would be beneficial, and failed to 22 file his pretrial statement. 23 Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service 24 of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the order as to 25 whether a settlement conference would be beneficial, and the Amended Second Scheduling Order 26 requiring Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff 27 may file his settlement conference statement and his pretrial statement, or a notice of voluntary 28 2 1 dismissal. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action 2 with prejudice. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 7, 2017 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 .

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?