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)

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