Hernandez v. Doe Officer One, et al.

Filing 32

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why the Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply With the Court's Order and for Failure to Prosecute 27 , 29 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/30/2018: 21-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUFUS HERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,

13

(Docs. 27, 29)

v.

14

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER
AND FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Defendants.

12

MARTIN, et al.,

15

21-DAY DEADLINE

16
17

1:17-cv-00429-JLT (PC)

On April 17, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to

18

propounded discovery. (Doc. 29.) On May 9, 2018, Defendants filed a statement of notice

19

regarding Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition to their motion to compel and request that

20

Plaintiff be precluded from arguing or otherwise opposing their motion and that the requests for

21

admissions Defendants propounded on Plaintiff be deemed admitted. (Doc. 31.) Plaintiff has not

22

provided any response to either of these filings.

23

On January 31, 2018, the Court issued the First Informational Order which dictated that,

24

“[i]f disputes arise about a parties’ obligation to respond to requests for discovery, the parties

25

shall comply with all pertinent rules including Rules 5, 7, 11, 26, and 37 of the Federal Rules of

26

Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 130, 131, 133, 135, 142, 144, and 230(l) of the Local Rules of

27

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.” (Doc. 27, p. 2.)

28

Local Rule 230(l) provides that, when motions are filed in prisoner actions:
1

1

5

. . . Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be served and filed
by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of
service of the motion. A responding party who has no opposition to the
granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect,
specifically designating the motion in question. Failure of the responding
party to file an opposition or to file a statement of no opposition may be
deemed a waiver of any opposition to the granting of the motion and may
result in the imposition of sanctions.

6

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or

2
3
4

7

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

8

Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110.

9

“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a

10

court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of

11

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice,

12

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to

13

comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992)

14

(dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S.

15

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

16

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

17

prosecute and to comply with local rules).

18

Accordingly, within 21 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why the action

19

should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order and for his failure to

20

prosecute this action, alternatively within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition or

21

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 30, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2