Machuca v. County of Kern, et al.

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/6/2017. 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

JORGE MACHUCA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.
COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01497 - JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

17

On August 10, 2017, the Court granted the motion of George Mgdesyan to withdraw as counsel

18

for Plaintiff. (Doc. 23) The Court ordered Plaintiff to “notify the Court whether he intends to represent

19

himself in this matter or whether he has secured substitute counsel and whether he intends to prosecute

20

this action.” (Id. at 3) Plaintiff was directed to file the notification “[n]o later than September 1,

21

2017.” (Id., emphasis in original) To date, Plaintiff has not indicated that he would prosecute the

22

action, or notified the Court whether or not he would represent himself.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

6

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

7

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to follow the

8

Court’s Order or, in the alternative, to notify the Court whether he intends to represent himself or has

9

secured counsel.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 6, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2