(PS) Whitsitt v. Grubb et al
Filing
31
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan on 1/24/2025 ORDERING plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within 14 days as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to follow an order of the Court. (Deputy Clerk KEZ)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
No. 2:23-cv-0869-TLN-SCR
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPUTY GRUBB; SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
DAVES TOWING; RONNIE ESTRADA;
and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.
18
19
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this matter, which was accordingly referred to the
20
undersigned for pretrial matters pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff filed the complaint
21
in this matter on May 10, 2023, a First Amended Complaint on March 11, 2024, and a Second
22
Amended Complaint on September 6, 2024. ECF Nos. 1, 9, 22.
23
On December 13, 2024, the Court issued an order setting a pretrial scheduling conference
24
for January 23, 2025. ECF No. 26. The Court’s order also required the parties to file status
25
reports at least 14 days prior to the pretrial scheduling conference. Id. While Defendants filed a
26
timely status report in advance of the pretrial scheduling conference, Plaintiff did not.
27
28
Plaintiff was not present at the in-person pretrial scheduling conference on January 23,
2025. See ECF No. 30. Counsel for Defendants stated that he had not had any contact with
1
1
Plaintiff leading up to the pretrial scheduling conference.
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows for the dismissal of an action if a plaintiff
3
fails to prosecute that action or comply with a court order. Moreover, Local Rule 110 provides
4
for the imposition of “any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent
5
power of the Court,” for a party’s failure to comply with “any order of the Court[.]” Courts
6
regularly dismiss actions where the plaintiff fails to participate in scheduling conferences or
7
otherwise fails to prosecute the case. See, e.g., Moore v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 23-cv-02293-
8
TLT, 2024 WL 2125610 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2024).
9
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s order that he file a status report in advance of
10
the pretrial scheduling conference and failed to attend the pretrial scheduling conference. While
11
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he must still comply with the Court’s orders and applicable rules
12
and must participate in the prosecution of this case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
13
that:
14
Plaintiff show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why
15
this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and for failure to follow an order of the
16
Court;1 and
17
Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a
18
recommendation that this case be dismissed.
19
DATED: January 24, 2025
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this civil action, plaintiff may comply with
this order by filing a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
2
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?