Estate of Jose Herrera, et al v. California Department of Corrections,et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action should not be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute; Fourteen (14) Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/25/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ESTTE OF JOSE HERRERA, et al.,,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECITONS, et al.,
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiffs are proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
October 2, 2017, Defendant, Bradley Atkinson, filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 asserting that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and
that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. 23.) Defendant’s notice of the motion
included a reminder that Local Rule 230 (l) required Plaintiffs to file an opposition or a statement
of non-opposition within twenty-one days of the date Defendant filed the motion. (Id.) Although
more than the allowed time has passed, Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition or a statement of
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
court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of
Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,
based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to
comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)
(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.
Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court
order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to
prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen (14) days of the
date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure comply with
the Local Rules and to prosecute this action; alternatively within that same time period, Plaintiff
may file a statement of non-opposition to Defendant Atkinson’s motion for summary judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 25, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Sheila K. Oberto
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?