Boulas v. United States Postal Service et al

Filing 5

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanction s should not issue for the failure to comply with the Courts order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice informing the Court of the status of service of this action. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 2/21/2018. (Hernandez, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MATTHEW BOULAS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:17-cv-01588-LJO-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS
SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO
COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER

v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, et al.,

FIVE DAY DEADLINE
15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Matthew Boulas filed this action on November 29, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On

18 November 30, 2017, the summonses and scheduling order issued. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The
19 scheduling order provides that Plaintiff is to serve the complaint in compliance with Rule 4 of
20 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to promptly file proofs of service. (ECF No. 3 at 1-2.)
21 As no proof of service had been filed and the defendants had not appeared in this action, the
22 Court issued an order on February 12, 2018, which was served on Plaintiff on February 13, 2018.
23 (ECF No. 4.) The order required Plaintiff to file a notice informing the Court of the status of
24 service of this action within five days of the date of entry of the order. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff
25 has not filed a notice informing the Court of the status of service of this action or otherwise
26 responded to the Court’s order.
27

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

28 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all

1

1 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
2 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
3 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
4 2000).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days from the date of

5

6 service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue for the
7 failure to comply with the Court’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice informing the Court of
8 the status of service of this action. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may
9 result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action.
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated:

February 21, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2