Heckathorn v. Holland

Filing 17

ORDER to PLAINTIFF and HIS COUNSEL to SHOW CAUSE Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed for Their Failure to Comply with the Court's Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/26/2018. Show Cause Response due by 3/30/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA HECKATHORN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-1416 AWI-JLT
ORDER TO THE PLAINTIFF AND HIS
COUNSEL TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

v.
KIM HOLLAND,

15

Defendants.

16
On March 19, 2018, the defendants filed an ex parte request for an extension of time to file

17
18

their first amended complaint. (Doc. 15) They indicate that they filed the request ex parte

19

because plaintiff’s counsel refused to consent to the request. Id. at 2. Construing the filing as a

20

request to proceed on shortened time, the Court ordered the plaintiff to respond no later than

21

March 23. (Doc. 16) The Court required the plaintiff to “detail his reasoning and support it by

22

citation to legal authority” if he still opposed the request for the extension of time. Id.

23

Nevertheless, the plaintiff and his counsel failed to respond. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1.

24

No later than March 30, 2018, the plaintiff and his counsel of records SHALL show

25

cause in writing why sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action, should not be

26

imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s orders;

27

///

28
1

1
2

2.

Pending resolution of this order to show cause, the defendant need not file her

responsive pleading.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 26, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2