Rios v. City of Bakersfield et al

Filing 20

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 8/3/2016. 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

JUVENTINO RIOS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-0372-JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

16
17

On July 18, 2016, the Court granted the motion to withdraw as counsel filed by J. Miguel

18

Flores, and ordered Plaintiff to “file a notification indicating whether he intends to represent himself

19

going forward or whether he will retain a new attorney” no later than July 29, 2016. (Doc. 19 at 3)

20

The Court instructed Plaintiff that if he intended to hire an attorney, he must notify the Court regarding

21

when that would occur. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s order.

22

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

23

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.
1

1

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

2

an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to

3

comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for

4

failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

5

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

6

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

7

in the alternative, to file a notification indicating whether he intends to represent himself or will be

8

hiring counsel.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 3, 2016

/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