(PC) Gonzales v. Podsakoff ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL GONZALES, Case No. 1:15-cv-00924-DAD-SKO (PC) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 11 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 12 PODSAKOFF, et al., (Doc. 93) 13 Defendants. TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE 14 15 Plaintiff, Michael Gonzales, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims 17 under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment for being involuntarily medicated 18 against Defendants A. Podsakoff, L. Lawrence, B. Stringer, J. Medina, J. Juarez, R. Mendoza, 19 and Nurse Gonzales. (Doc. 28.) On November 19, 2018, the Second Scheduling Order issued 20 and scheduled this action for trial before the Honorable Dale A. Drozd, United States District 21 Judge, beginning on November 19, 2019. (Doc. 93.) That order required Plaintiff to file a 22 pretrial statement on or before July 19, 2019. (Id.) Despite passage of more than a week beyond 23 the deadline, Plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or 25 of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 26 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. 27 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a 1 court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of 2 Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 3 based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to 4 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. 6 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to 8 prosecute and to comply with local rules). Neither the Court, nor Defendants may prepare for 9 trial absent Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. 10 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within ten (10) days of the date of 11 service of this order why the action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply with the 12 Second Scheduling Order; alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his pretrial 13 statement or a notice of voluntary dismissal. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Sheila K. Oberto 16 Dated: August 20, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27