Williams et al v. County of Kern

Filing 54

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiffs' Failure to Prosecute, Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, and Failure to Appear at the Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/19/2014. 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

LACHANA WILLIAMS and RUPERT
WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, et al.
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01983- AWI-JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER, AND
FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE

The Court held its Scheduling Conference on March 19, 2014. Plaintiffs Lachana Williams and

18

Rupert Williams failed to appear at the conference. In addition, Plaintiffs failed to prepare a Joint

19

Scheduling Report prior to the conference.

20

On December 4, 2013, this Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference.”

21

(Doc. 44.) The parties were informed that “[a]ttendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory

22

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

23

in original.) In addition, the parties were instructed to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report and filed the

24

document “one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference.” (Id.) Further, the Court warned the

25

parties: “SHOULD COUNSEL OR A PARTY APPEARING PRO SE FAIL TO APPEAR AT

26

THE MANDATORY SCHEDULIGN CONFERENCE, OR FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE

27

DIRECTIONS AS SET FORTH ABOVE, AN EX PARTE HEARING MAY BE HELD AND

28

JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL, DEFAULT, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT MAY
1

1

BE ENTERED, OR SANCTIONS INCLUDING CONTEMPT OF COURT, MAY BE IMPOSED

2

AND/OR ORDERED.” (Id. at 8, emphasis in original.) Despite these warnings, Plaintiffs failed to

3

participate in the preparation of a Joint Scheduling Report, or to appear at the Scheduling Conference.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

15

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

16

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure to prosecute, failure

17

comply with the Court’s order (Doc. 44), and failure to appear at the Court’s Scheduling Conference.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 19, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2