Willis v. Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER WITHDRAWING 88 the Order to Show Cause Dated November 1, 2017; ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE in Writing Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Comply with the Local Rules, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/1/2017. Response to Order to Show Cause due within 14 days. Pretrial Conference set for 11/30/2017 is VACATED. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH WILLIS, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 ENTERPRISE DRILLING FLUIDS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:15-cv-0688 – JLT ORDER WITHDRAWING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DATED NOVEMBER 1, 2017 (Doc. 88) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULES Previously, the Court held a further scheduling conference with the parties, and set a pretrial 18 conference for November 3, 2017. (Doc. 83 at 1) Pursuant to Local Rule 281, Plaintiff was to file and 19 serve a pretrial statement “[n]ot less than fourteen (14) days before the date set by the Court for the 20 holding of the final pretrial conference.” See Local Rule 281(a)(1). To date, a pretrial statement has 21 not been filed, and Plaintiff has taken no other action to continue prosecuting this action. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with the[] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by 24 the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 25 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 26 may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 27 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may impose sanctions, including dismissal, for 28 failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. 1 1 See, e.g. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissing the action for failure 2 to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The order to show cause directed to all parties (Doc. 88) is WITHDRAWN; 5 2. Plaintiff SHALL show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order 6 why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Local Rules and 7 failure to prosecute; and 8 2. The pre-trial conference set for November 3, 2017 is VACATED. 9 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 1, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 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?