Goods v. City of Bakersfield Police Department ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES FRANCES GOODS, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-662-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER VACATING THE SCHEDULING ) CONFERENCE SET FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2019 13 v. ) ) ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED ) FOR THEIR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 15 Defendants. ) COURT’S ORDER ) 16 ) 17 Charles Francis Goods is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, in which he asserts 18 Officer Teri Harless used excessive force against Plaintiff while placing him under arrest and is liable 19 for a violation of his civil rights. 20 After the Court found service of the First Amended Complaint was appropriate, it issued an 21 “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference” on August 14, 2019. (Doc. 10) At that time, the 22 parties were ordered to prepare a joint scheduling report and file it one week prior to the scheduling 23 conference, set for November 12, 2019. (Id. at 2) Thus, the parties were to file a joint scheduling 24 report no later than November 5, 2019. To date, the parties have filed neither a joint statement nor 25 unilateral statements indicating an in ability to meet and confer. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions 2 including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 3 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 4 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 5 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (terminating sanctions for failure to comply with an 6 order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (sanctions for failure to 7 comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (terminating 8 sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 9 1. The scheduling conference set for November 12, 2019 is VACATED; and 10 2. The parties are ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service 11 of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for their failure comply with the 12 Court’s order and failure to file the joint scheduling report 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 7, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28