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)

Download PDF
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

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?