Perez v. Quicken Loans Mortgage Services

Filing 4

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 5/21/2018. 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

CARMEN DOLORES PEREZ

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
QUICKEN LOANS MORTGAGE
SERVICES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:17-cv-1765 -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

17

Carmen Dolores Perez is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action against

18

Quicken Loans Mortgage Services. (Doc. 1) On April 9, 2018, the Court determined Plaintiff failed to

19

clearly allege facts supporting a conclusion that the Court has jurisdiction in this action. (Doc. 3 at 3)

20

In addition, the Court noted Plaintiff failed to clearly identify the claims upon which she sought to

21

proceed. (Id. at 3-4) Therefore, the Court was ordered to file an amended complaint within thirty days

22

of the date of service. (Id.at 5) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or taken any

23

other action to prosecute this matter.

24

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

25

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

26

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have

27

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

28

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831
1

1

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

2

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

3

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

4

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

5

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th

6

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

8

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for the failure comply with the Court’s

9

order and failure to prosecute or to file an amended complaint.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 21, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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