Rachelle Ridola v. Muhammad

Filing 14

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to Show Cause why Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute-FIVE DAY DEADLINE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/11/2017. It is hereby ordered that within five (5) days from the date of entry of t his order, Plaintiff shall respond in writing as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and if Plaintiff fails to file a response in compliance with this order the Court shall recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Valdez, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No. 1:16-cv-01481-LJO-SAB

RACHELLE RIDOLA,
Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

BILAL MUHAMMAD,
FIVE DAY DEADLINE
Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff Rachelle Ridola filed this action on October 3, 2016. On November 14, 2016,

18 default was entered against Defendant Bilal Muhammad at Plaintiff’s request. On November 30,
19 2016, Plaintiff filed a request to continue the scheduling conference. In her request, Plaintiff
20 stated that the wrong individual had been served and requested to continue to the scheduling
21 conference to serve the correct defendant. On January 17, 2017, after Plaintiff filed a second
22 request for entry of default, default was entered against Bilal Muhammad. As of the date of this
23 order, Plaintiff has not moved for default judgment or otherwise addressed the status in this
24 action. Accordingly, this action has been dormant on the Court docket for approximately three
25 months.
26

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

27 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
28 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

1

1 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
2 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
3 2000).
4

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Within five (5) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall respond in
writing as to why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

6
2.

7

If Plaintiff fails to file a response in compliance with this order the Court shall
recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated:

April 11, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2