Colbert v. County of Kern et al

Filing 24

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Matter Should Not Be Dismissed, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/28/2015. 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

BRENNAN COBERT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.
Defendants.

) Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT
)
) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
) THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
)
)
)
)
)

16
17

On March 6, 2015, Shawn Khorrami filed a “Designation of Counsel for Service” on behalf of

18

Plaintiff. (Doc. 21.) On March 10, 2015, the Court issued an order noting that the document appeared

19

to be intended as a substitution of attorney. (Doc. 22.) Notably, the designation asserted that prior

20

counsel were “no longer counsel of record in this action.” Id. at 2. Because a designation of counsel is

21

not the appropriate method to substitute counsel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a Substitution of

22

Attorney (containing the appropriate signatures) and Proposed Order within fourteen (14) days.” (Id.)

23

Plaintiff failed to comply.

24

On May 13, 2015, the Court issued to attorneys, Hermez Moreno, Brian Bush, and Shawn

25

Khorrami, an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the

26

Court’s orders but noted that the filing of a substitution of attorneys in lieu would satisfy the Court.

27

(Doc. 23) No attorney responded.

28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a
1

1

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or

6

failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

7

F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone v.

8

U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with a

9

court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure

10
11

to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Therefore, given what appears to abandonment of this case by all counsel but not necessarily by

12

Plaintiff, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing within 14 days why the matter should

13

not be dismissed as abandoned.

14
15

Plaintiff is strongly admonished that his failure to respond to this order within 14 days
will result in an order dismissing this case.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 28, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2