Schaupp et al v. County of Stanislaus et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why the claims of Plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp, S.R., L.S., D.S. and P.I. should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/13/2020. Show Cause Response due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CAROLYN SCHAUPP, et al.,
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,
Case No. 1:20-cv-01221-DAD-BAM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS CAROLYN
SCHAUPP, SR., L.S., D.S., AND P.I.
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
This action was filed on August 28, 2020, asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1984,
18 U.S.C. § 242, and various state law claims against Defendants County of Stanislaus, County of
Stanislaus Child Protective Services, Office of the District Attorney of Stanislaus County, Birgit
Fladager, Cristina Magana, City of Modesto, Modesto Police Department, Galen Carroll, Clinton
Armstrong, Kyle Johnson, Kathryn Harwell, Edwardo Cortez, Gary Boyd, Kim Mallock, Sandra
Lucas, Kimberly Underwood, Matthew Mercado, Frank Sousa, Edward Izzo, and Does 1-20.
(Doc. No. 1.) According to the complaint, the action is brought by Plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp,
Carolyn Schaupp, Sr., L.S., a minor, D.S., a minor, and P.I., a minor, proceeding pro se. (Id.)
On September 3, 2020, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff Carolyn Schaupp, Sr.
to respond in writing confirming her name, address, and telephone number pursuant to Local Rule
131(a). (Doc. No. 7.) The Court’s order further advised Plaintiffs that a parent or guardian cannot
bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining counsel. (Id.) Therefore, minors L.S.,
D.S., and P.I. must be represented by retained counsel if this action is to proceed on their behalf.
(Id.) Plaintiffs were warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order would result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and/or
failure to prosecute. (Id.) To date, Carolyn Schaupp, Sr. has not confirmed her name, address, and
telephone number in writing pursuant to Local Rule 131(a) or otherwise responded to the Court’s
order. Furthermore, minors L.S., D.S., and P.I. improperly remain “represented” by Carolyn
Schaupp appearing pro se and counsel has not appeared on their behalf.
Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules
or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
control its docket and may impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action.
Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are HEREBY ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why the claims of
Plaintiffs Carolyn Schaupp, Sr., and minors L.S., D.S., and P.I. should not be dismissed for
failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute and because Plaintiff Carolyn Schaupp has no
authority to appear on behalf of minors L.S., D.S., and P.I. Plaintiffs shall file a written response
to this order to show cause within fourteen (14) days of service of this order. Plaintiffs may also
comply with this order by filing written confirmation of Carolyn Schaupp, Sr.’s name, address,
and telephone number pursuant to Local Rule 131(a) and by entering an appropriate appearance
of counsel on behalf of minors L.S., D.S., and P.I.
Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 13, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?