Gonzales v. Podsakoff, et al.

Filing 116

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order,signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/20/2019. Show Cause Response due 10-Day Deadline (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MICHAEL GONZALES,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

PODSAKOFF, et al.,
(Doc. 93)

13

Defendants.
TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims
under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment for being involuntarily medicated
against Defendants A. Podsakoff, L. Lawrence, B. Stringer, J. Medina, J. Juarez, R. Mendoza,
and Nurse Gonzales. (Doc. 28.) On November 19, 2018, the Second Scheduling Order issued
and scheduled this action for trial before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District
Judge, beginning on November 19, 2019. (Doc. 93.) That order required Plaintiff to file a
pretrial statement on or before July 19, 2019. (Id.) Despite passage of more than a week beyond
the deadline, Plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement.
The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure 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 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

28
1

1

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

2

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

3

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

4

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

6

Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court

7

order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to

8

prosecute and to comply with local rules). Neither the Court, nor Defendants may prepare for

9

trial absent Plaintiff’s pretrial statement.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within ten (10) days of the date of

10
11

service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the

12

Second Scheduling Order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his pretrial

13

statement or a notice of voluntary dismissal.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 20, 2019

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

.