Lynne Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC

Filing 15

ORDER to Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/26/2015. 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

LYNNE L. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00287 - --- - JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

Plaintiff Lynne Wright is proceeding pro se with this action against Defendant Specialized Loan

18

Servicing, LLC. Notably, this is the third case Plaintiff has filed which raises the same claims against

19

the same Defendant. See, Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC., Case No. 1:13-cv-00899 LJO

20

JLT; Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC., Case No. 1:14-cv-01587 LJO JLT. In all three cases,

21

Plaintiff has asserted that Defendant has made false reports regarding a debt to three credit reporting

22

agencies and has used unlawful methods to attempt to collect this debt. (Doc. 1) In this third case, just

23

as in the previous two, Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support her claims. Thus, the Court

24

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on February 27, 2015. (Doc. 14.) The Court granted

25

Plaintiff 21 days from the date of service, or until March 24, 2015, to file an amended complaint. To

26

date, Plaintiff has failed to file her First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

27
28

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure 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
1

1

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

2

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

3

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

4

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

5

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

6

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

7

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

8

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

9

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

10

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of

11

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court’s order, or in

12

the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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