Alonso v. Barham et al

Filing 77

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar. Plaintiff's Show-Cause Response is due no later than October 26, 2020. (am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JUAN CARLOS ALONSO,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 16-cv-0903 KWR/SMV

JULIE BARHAM and
CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiff has failed appear at a telephonic
status conference scheduled for September 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. See [Doc. 76]. Plaintiff is
ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear.
On September 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order Setting Telephonic Status Conference
for September 24, 2020. [Doc. 76]. The Order directed all parties to call Judge Vidmar’s
teleconference line on September 24, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The notice of electronic filing indicates
that the Order was sent to Plaintiff by United States mail at 308 South Kansas in Roswell,
New Mexico, 88203. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to appear, and the status conference could not
proceed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that no later than October 26, 2020, Plaintiff must
show cause, in writing, why he should not be sanctioned for his failure to appear at the telephonic
status conference set for September 24, 2020, in accordance with the Court’s Order Setting
Telephonic Status Conference [Doc. 72].

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to timely respond to this Order, he
may be sanctioned up to and including dismissal of this case without further notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b) (allowing for involuntary dismissal where “the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to
comply with the[] rules [of procedure] or a court order”); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626,
629–30 (1962) (courts have inherent power to dismiss cases for lack of prosecution); D.N.M.LRCiv. 41.1 (“A civil action may be dismissed if, for a period of ninety (90) days, no steps are taken
to move the case forward.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f) (authorizing sanctions against a party who fails
to comply with court orders); Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 921 (10th Cir. 1992) (outlining
factors to consider in dismissing a case).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail two copies of this Order to
Plaintiff: one at his address in Roswell and one at the Chaves County Detention Center.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________
STEPHAN M. VIDMAR
United States Magistrate Judge

2