Sienze v. Madera County Sheriff's Office, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Issue for Failure to Appear for Mandatory Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/20/18. Show Cause Response Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VICTOR M. SIENZE,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-00736-AWI-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO
APPEAR FOR MANDATORY
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

v.
MADERA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,
et al.,

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

15
Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff Victor M. Sienze is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 27, 2017, the order setting the mandatory
20 scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 15.) Pursuant to the order, all parties
21 were to attend the scheduling conference on February 20, 2018. (Id. at 2.) As Plaintiff is not
22 represented by counsel his personal appearance was required. (Id.) The order also informed the
23 parties that “[s]hould counsel or a party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory
24 Scheduling Conference, or fail to comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte
25 hearing may be held and contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal,
26 default, or other appropriate judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered.”

(Id. at 7

27 (emphasis in original).)
28

The parties filed their joint scheduling report on January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 16.)

1

1 Plaintiff did not appear for the February 20, 2018 mandatory scheduling conference.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

2

3 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
4 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
5 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
6 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
7 2000).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within

8

9 fourteen (14) days of the date of entry of this order why sanctions should not issue for his
10 failure to comply with the November 27, 2017 order requiring his personal appearance at the
11 mandatory scheduling conference. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may
12 result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to
13 prosecute.
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16 Dated:

February 20, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2