Estate of Jose Herrera, et al v. California Department of Corrections,et al

Filing 25

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO (PC) ESTTE OF JOSE HERRERA, et al.,, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Plaintiffs, v. (Doc. 23) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECITONS, et al., FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiffs are proceeding in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 non-opposition. 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 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 26 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 27 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 28 1 1 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 2 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 3 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 5 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 6 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 7 prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen (14) days of the 8 9 date of service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for their failure comply with 10 the Local Rules and to prosecute this action; alternatively within that same time period, Plaintiff 11 may file a statement of non-opposition to Defendant Atkinson’s motion for summary judgment. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: October 25, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Sheila K. Oberto 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?