Hurtado v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

Filing 7

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply With the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/29/2015. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PABLO HURTADO, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 v. WALMART STORES, INC./STORE #5134, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-01706 - --- - JLT ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 16 17 Plaintiff Pablo Hurtado initiated this action by filing complaint against his employer, Walmart 18 Stores, because he claims that they denied him promotions and required him to collect shopping carts 19 based upon his gender. (Doc. 5 at 2). On December 23, 2014, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to 20 allege facts sufficient to support the claims for relief, and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. 21 (Doc. 6.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a second amended complaint within thirty days of the date of 22 service, or no later than January 26, 2015. (Id. at 4). To date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with or 23 otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 28 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 1 1 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 4 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 6 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of 8 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and failure 9 comply with the Court’s order or, in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 29, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 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?