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)

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The order to show cause directed to all parties (Doc. 88) is WITHDRAWN;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