Jones et al v. Tulare County et al

Filing 81

Order to Show Cause why the action should not be dismissed against new Defendants listed in the Third Amended Complaint for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's order, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 9/15/2017. Show Cause Response due by 10/18/2017. (Rosales, O)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM FABRICIUS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. TULARE COUNTY, et al. Defendants. Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-EPG ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AGAINST NEW DEFENDANTS LISTED IN THE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER THIRTY DAY DEADLINE 16 On July 24, 2017, Plaintiff William Fabricius proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 filed a Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”). (ECF No. 75). On July 31, 2017, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to complete and submit within 30 days service documents for any defendants listed in his 3AC who were not previously served with process in this action. (ECF No. 76.) More than 45 days have passed, and Plaintiff has failed to submit the required documents or otherwise respond to the Court's Order. The Local Rules, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 25 the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and 26 in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. 27 Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 28 1 1 dismiss an action with prejudice based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a 2 court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 3 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of 4 complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for 5 failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 6 (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why this action should not be 8 dismissed as against any new defendants listed in his 3AC for his failure to comply with the 9 Court’s order. Plaintiff is ordered to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause 10 indicating whether he intends to pursue this action as against the new defendants and explaining 11 his failure to submit service documents by the required date. Alternatively, Plaintiff may submit 12 the required documents. Any such response shall be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the 13 date of this Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this order as set forth 14 above may result in the dismissal of this action as against the new defendants. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 15, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?