Watschke v. Department of the Air Force

Filing 13

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Plaintiff's Failure to Comply with the Court's Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/6/2018. 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 MARIBEL M. WATSCHKE, Plaintiff, 12 13 v. 14 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:17-cv-1211-DAD - JLT ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 16 17 On January 29, 2018, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s first amended complaint with leave to 18 amend. (Doc. 12) The Court indicated it would give Plaintiff a final opportunity to state a claim upon 19 which relief could be granted by the Court, and directed her to file a Second Amended Complaint 20 within thirty days. (Id. at 5) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint or requested 21 additional time to comply with the Court’s order. 22 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 23 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 24 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 25 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 26 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 27 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 28 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 1 1 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 2 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 3 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 4 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of 6 service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court’s 7 order, or in the alternative, to file a Second Amended Complaint. 8 9 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 6, 2018 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 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?