Johnson v. Cairns et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 04/21/11 ORDERING that the 18 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED. (Benson, A.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SCOTT N. JOHNSON , 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, 2:10-cv-02280-JAM-KJN PS v. KEVIN M. CAIRNS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D /B /A DANTE ’S ON THE RIVER ; NANCY C. CAIRNS, INDIVIDUALLY AND D /B /A DANTE ’S ON THE RIVER , 15 Defendants. ORDER 16 / 17 18 On February 24, 2011, this case came before the undersigned for a status (pretrial 19 scheduling) conference. (Dkt. No. 15.)1 Prior to that status conference, plaintiff Scott N. 20 Johnson filed a status report on his own behalf. (Dkt. No. 16.) Defendants Kevin and Nancy 21 Cairns (the “defendants”), proceeding without counsel in this action, neither filed a status report 22 nor appeared at the status conference and accordingly, the undersigned issued an Order to Show 23 Cause on February 24, 2011. (Dkt. No. 18.) 24 25 26 1 This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and was referred to the undersigned by an order entered February 16, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 13-14.) 1 1 On March 16, 2011, the defendants filed a timely response to the Order to Show 2 Cause. (Dkt. No. 20.) Therein, defendants apologized for their failure to attend the status 3 conference. They revealed a misunderstanding that the action was “over” because their bank 4 teller had informed them that Mr. Johnson was not allowed to proceed with further lawsuits. 5 (Id.) This explains, but does not excuse, defendants’ failure to appear at the status conference. It 6 neither explains nor excuses defendants’ prior failure to file a status report. 7 Defendants may not rely on passing suggestions by their acquaintances indicating 8 that defendants might lack the obligation to fully defend themselves in the pending action. To 9 the contrary, defendants are obligated to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 10 the Eastern District Local Rules until the court informs them otherwise. Even though they are 11 not represented by an attorney, defendants are obligated to fully comply with the Federal Rules of 12 Civil Procedure and the Eastern District Local Rules. See Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or 13 of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 14 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 15 inherent power of the Court.”); Local Rule 183(a) (“Any individual representing himself or 16 herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these 17 Rules, and all other applicable law.”); King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se 18 litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). 19 Notwithstanding the foregoing, because defendants are proceeding without 20 counsel and may not have fully understood their obligations as defendants in this action, the 21 undersigned discharges the Order to Show Cause and will not sanction defendants at this time. 22 However, their future failure to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern 23 District Local Rules may subject defendants to sanctions, including possibly entry of default 24 judgment against them. See e.g., Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 25 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets. In the 26 2 1 exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, default or 2 dismissal.”). 3 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 The Order to Show Cause (Dkt. No. 18) is discharged. DATED: April 21, 2011 7 8 9 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

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?