Jacobsen v. People of the State of California

Filing 126

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order and for Failure to Prosecute 119 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/23/17: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 15 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Plaintiff, 13 14 1:14-cv-00108-JLT (PC) MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (Doc. 119) Defendants. 16 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 Defendants Diaz and Barajas moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against 18 19 20 21 22 23 them under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docs. 114, 116.)1 On June 13, 2017, a Second Informational Order issued informing Plaintiff of his duty and the requirements to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion and was ordered to file either responsive document within 21 days. (Doc. 119.) More than thirty days have now lapsed without Plaintiff filing either. The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 24 25 26 27 28 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 1 Defendants filed their notice of motion two days after their moving papers. (Docs. 114, 116.) 1 1 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 2 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 3 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 4 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 6 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 8 prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service 10 of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order 11 and for his failure to prosecute this action, alternatively within that same time, Plaintiff may file 12 an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 23, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?