Patkins v. Alomari et al

Filing 39

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order and to prosecute this action signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/13/2016. Show Cause Response due by 10/7/2016.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID C. PATKINS,
Plaintiff,

13

(Docs. 34, 38)

v.

14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT'S ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE
THIS ACTION

Defendants.

12

ALOMARI, et al.,

15

21-DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 1:14-cv-00674-LJO-JLT (PC)

In this action, the defendants filed a motion for motion for summary judgment based upon
their claim the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Docs. 34.)
Plaintiff requested the Court allow him to conduct discovery on the issue and the Court granted
this request on April 13, 2016. (Doc. 38.) The order set forth specific parameters as to what
discovery was allowed, set a deadline for completion of all discovery on Plaintiff’s exhaustion
efforts of June 12, 2016, and ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion by July
12, 2016. (Id.)
Two months past that deadline have now passed and Plaintiff has failed to file an
opposition or statement of non-opposition, or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment. 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

28
1

1

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”

2

Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising

3

that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing

4

Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with

5

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or

6

failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.

7

1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone

8

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

9

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

10

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

11

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 21 days of the date of service

12

of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order

13

and for his failure to prosecute this action.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 13, 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2