Nunes et al v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 99

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES to SHOW CAUSE in Writing Why Sanctions Should Not Issue for Failure to Comply, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/6/2022. Show Cause Response due by 7/11/2022. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELINA NUNES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

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

Case No. 1:17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW
CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY
(ECF No. 98)
DEADLINE: JULY 11, 2022

16
17
18

Plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and L.X.’s (collectively

19

“Plaintiffs”) initiated this civil action against Defendants County of Stanislaus, Kristen Johnson,

20

and Eric Anderson on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) This action arises from the temporary removal

21

of Plaintiffs’ minor children from their custody by Defendants for a period of fifty-one days

22

during the summer of 2016, which Plaintiffs claim was unlawful and without a warrant or exigent

23

circumstances. (Id.) On March 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a petition for minor’s compromise,

24

which Defendants have not opposed. (ECF No. 91.) The matter was referred to a United States

25

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

26

On May 31, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,

27

recommending that the petition for minor’s compromise as to Plaintiffs D.X. and L.X.’s claims be

28

granted and the settlement be approved. (ECF No. 97.) No parties objected to the findings and
1

1

recommendations and on June 21, 2022, the district judge adopted the findings and

2

recommendations in full. (ECF No. 98.) The parties were directed to file a stipulation or request

3

for dismissal of the action within fourteen days, or July 5, 2022. 1 (Id. at 2.) The Court notes that

4

the deadline to file dispositional documents has expired, but nothing has been filed.

5

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

6

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

7

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to

8

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,

9

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.

10

2000).

11
12

The Court shall require the parties to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the
failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 order.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

The parties shall show cause in writing no later than July 11, 2022, why

15

monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents

16

as required by the June 21, 2022 order; and

17

2.

Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 6, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The district judge’s order also remanded the matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with
his order. (ECF No. 98 at 2.)
1

28

2