Brown v. Hagel et al

Filing 49

ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/31/17 ORDERING that the status (pretrial scheduling) conference is CONTINUED to 6/7/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan; pla intiff shall appear at the 06/07/17 hearing to SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the 05/31/17 hearing. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KEITH EDWARD BROWN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-26-JAM-EFB PS

v.

ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

JAMES MATTIS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On May 31, 2017, this case was before the court for a status (pretrial scheduling)

17
18

conference.1 Assistant United States Attorney Philip A. Scarborough appeared on behalf of

19

defendants; plaintiff failed to appear.
Local Rule 230(i) provides that “[a]bsent notice of intent to submit the matter on the

20
21

briefs, failure to appear [at the hearing] . . . may result in the imposition of sanctions.” Failure to

22

comply with the court’s Local Rules or the orders of this court “may be grounds for imposition by

23

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of

24

the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995)

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

(“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). In light of

2

plaintiff’s failure to appear, it is hereby ORDERED that:

3

1. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference is continued to June 7, 2017.

4

2. Plaintiff shall appear at the June 7 hearing to show cause why sanctions should not be

5
6

imposed for his failure to appear at the May 31, 2017 hearing.
3. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be

7

dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

8

DATED: May 31, 2017.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2