Richards v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER to PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/28/2019. Show Cause Response due within 14 days. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS RICHARDS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-1094 LJO JLT
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
ORDER

17

On May 15, 2019, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a motion for preliminary

18

approval of the class settlement. (Doc. 37) Based upon the information provided, the Court granted the

19

extension of time, stating “the deadline for Plaintiff to file his unopposed motion for preliminary

20

approval of class action settlement is... continued to July 15, 2019.” (Doc. 38 at 5, emphasis omitted)

21

To date, Plaintiff has failed to file his motion for approval of the settlement or otherwise comply with

22

the Court’s order to seek approval of the settlement terms.

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

it or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

2

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S.

3

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

4

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

5

comply with local rules).

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of this

7

Order why terminating sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court’s

8

order, or in the alternative, to file his motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 28, 2019

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2