Graves v. Clinton et al

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/8/2011 DENYING plaintiff's 32 34 Motions to Add New Discovery Exhibits. Plaintiff directed NOT to file any similarly such Motions in the future unless he can find some substantive and procedural basis for them. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PETER GRAVES,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. 2:10-cv-3156 MCE KJN PS

v.
HILLARY RANDOM CLINTON
and JAMES STEINBERG,

14
Defendants.
15

ORDER
/

16

Presently before the court are two motions filed by plaintiff: (1) a “‘Motion to add

17

newly discovery Exhibit’. ‘Exhibit #4A’ Correctly.”; and (2) a “‘Motion to add newly discovery

18

Exhibit’. ‘Exhibit #5.’” (Dkt. Nos. 32, 34.) Plaintiff previously filed four similar “motions,” and

19

the undersigned denied those motions as procedurally and substantively defective. (See Order,

20

Apr. 7, 2011, Dkt. No. 33; see also Dkt. Nos. 28-31.) The pending “motions” suffer from the

21

same defects as those motions already denied by the court.

22

////

23

////

24

////

25

////

26

////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

Plaintiff’s “motions” to add new discovery exhibits (Dkt. Nos. 32, 34) are

2.

Plaintiff is directed not to file any similar such motions in the future,

3
4

denied.

5

unless he can find some substantive basis for such motions and a procedural basis for filing such

6

motions, as provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the court’s Local Rules. Any

7

future motions of this sort will be summarily denied. Plaintiff is reminded that Eastern District

8

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

9

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions

10

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover, Eastern

11

District Local Rule 183(a) provides:

12
13
14

Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is
bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules,
and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these
Rules apply to individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply
therewith may be ground for dismissal . . . or any other sanction
appropriate under these Rules.

15
16

See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the

17

same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Case law is in accord that a district court

18

may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal

19

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to comply with the court’s orders, the

20

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See Hells Canyon Preservation

21

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss

22

an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to

23

prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46

24

F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a

25

proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

26

(“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for
2

1

failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782

2

F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to

3

control their dockets and may impose sanctions including dismissal).

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 8, 2011

6
7
8

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3