Jacobsen v. People of the State of California
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
MICHAEL NEIL JACOBSEN,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants Diaz and Barajas moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims against
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
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
Defendants filed their notice of motion two days after their moving papers. (Docs. 114, 116.)
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service
of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order
and for his failure to prosecute this action, alternatively within that same time, Plaintiff may file
an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 23, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?