Rawat v. Fernandes et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/23/2018 DIRECTING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days of this order, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the 2/22/2018 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KIRAN RAWAT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-02100-KJM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

TAMMY FERNANDES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On February 22, 2018, this case was before the undersigned for a status (pre-trial

18

scheduling) conference.1 Plaintiff failed to appear at the status conference. (ECF No. 4.)

19

However, on the same day, plaintiff requested an entry of default against all defendants, from the

20

Clerk of Court. (ECF No. 5.)
Previously, on October 11, 2017, the court issued an “Order Setting Status Conference.”

21
22

(ECF No. 3.) The order directed plaintiff to “complete service of process on defendants named in

23

the complaint within 90 days from the date of th[e] order.” (Id. at 1.) The order also “cautioned

24

that this action may be dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 90 days from

25

the date that the complaint [wa]s filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Id.)

26

////

27
28

1

This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

That same order set a status (pre-trial scheduling) conference for February 22, 2018, at

2

10:00 a.m., and stated that “[a]ll parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without

3

counsel.” (Id. at 2.) The order also directed the parties to file a status report addressing specific

4

topics no later than seven (7) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 2-3.) The order

5

specifically cautioned that “[f]ailing to obey federal or local rules, or [an] order of this court, may

6

result in dismissal of this action. This court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but pro se

7

litigants must comply with the procedural rules.” (Id. at 3.)

8

In addition to failing to appear at the status (pre-trial scheduling) conference, plaintiff

9

failed to file a status report with the court no later than seven days prior to the status conference.

10

Additionally, while plaintiff now asserts that defendants were served on October 19, 2017 (ECF

11

No. 5), plaintiff failed to provide proof of service, prior to the February 22, 2018 status

12

conference.

13

“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”

14

King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (overruled on other grounds). A district court

15

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

16

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case, or fails to

17

comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules.

18

See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua

19

sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S.

20

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that courts may dismiss an action

21

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

22

or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

23

53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground

24

for dismissal”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal

25

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with

26

any order of the court”); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

27

1986) (per curiam) (stating that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and

28

may impose sanctions including dismissal or default).
2

This court’s Local Rules are in accord. Eastern District Local Rule 110 provides that

1
2

“[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may

3

be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

4

within the inherent power of the Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides,

5

in part:

6

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,
judgment by default, or any other sanction appropriate under these
Rules.

7
8
9
10

E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a).

11

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

Within fourteen days of this order, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why

13

sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the February 22, 2018 status (pre-trial

14

scheduling) conference.

15

2.

Plaintiff’s failure to file the required response shall constitute an additional ground

16

for, and plaintiff’s consent to, the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including a potential

17

recommendation that plaintiff’s case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rules 110 and 183(a).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2018

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3