Anthony Nuno v. California State University, Bakersfield et al

Filing 6

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 11/27/2017. 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 ANTHONY NUNO, 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY BAKERSFIELD, et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-0978 -AWI-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 Anthony Nuno asserts that he is a professor at California State University, Bakersfield, and has 18 been subjected to harassment and retaliation based upon his race and national origin. (Doc. 1) On 19 September 22, 2017, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support his claims 20 for violations of Title VII and dismissed the compliant with leave to amend. (Doc. 3) Plaintiff 21 requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint, which was granted by the Court. (Docs. 22 4-5) Plaintiff was ordered to “file an amended complaint no later than November 20, 2017.” (Doc. 5 at 23 1, emphasis omitted) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint or take any other action 24 to prosecute this matter. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 27 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 1 1 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 2 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 3 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 4 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 5 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 6 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 7 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 9 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure comply with the Court’s order and failure to prosecute, or in the alternative, to file an amended complaint. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 27, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?