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)

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

.