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)

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