United States of America v. Thomas

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/22/10, ORDERING that on or before 7/7/10, dft shall file a status report addressing the issues raised in the district judge's order 3/19/10 3 at 3-5. On or before 7/7/10, dft shall show cause, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the 5/25/10 order. (Kastilahn, A)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. DANIEL E. THOMAS, Defendant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0652 LKK EFB PS

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On March 19, 2010, the assigned district judge issued an order setting a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for May 24, 2010 and directing the parties to file a status report within fourteen days of the scheduled conference. Dckt. No. 3 at 3-5. On May 17, 2010, plaintiff filed a status report in accordance with the March 19 order; however, no such status report was filed by defendant. In light of the referral of this action to the undersigned, the May 24 status conference was vacated by the district judge. Dckt. No. 10. On May 25, 2010, the undersigned issued an order directing defendant to file, on or before June 16, 2010, a status report addressing the issues //// //// 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

raised in the district judge's March 19, 2010 order, Dckt. No. 3 at 3-5.1 Dckt. No. 14. The order admonished defendant that he must comply with the procedural rules and stated that "[f]ailing to obey federal or local rules, or order of this court, may result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action or the entry of default judgment against defendant." Id. (citing E.D. Cal. L.R. 110). The court file reveals that defendant has not filed a status report, as required by the May 25, 2010 order. Therefore, defendant will be once again ordered to file a status report and will also be ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to comply with the May 25, 2010 order. E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."); see also L.R. 183 ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules."); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. On or before July 7, 2010, defendant shall file a status report addressing the issues raised in the district judge's March 19, 2010 order, Dckt. No. 3 at 3-5. 2. On or before July 7, 2010, defendant shall show cause, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the May 25, 2010 order. 3. Plaintiff is not required to file a further status report or a response to defendant's status report, but if it elects to do so, any such status report or response to defendant's status report shall be filed on or before July 14, 2010. //// ////

1

The May 25, 2010 order did not re-schedule the status conference. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

4. Failure of defendant to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation for entry of default against defendant. DATED: June 22, 2010.

3