Mendoza v. Macy's Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RENEE C. MENDOZA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01156-DAD-SKO Plaintiff, 10 SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 11 MACY’S INC., DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S 12 Defendant. ORDER 13 (Doc. 12) 14 FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE 15 16 On August 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendant. (Doc. 1.) 17 Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted on September 4, 2019. 18 (Docs. 2, 3.) 19 On September 20, 2019, the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff’s complaint failed 20 to state any cognizable claims and granting leave until October 11, 2019, for Plaintiff to file an 21 amended complaint. (Doc. 4.) Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file her amended 22 complaint, and the Court granted the request and allowed Plaintiff until November 22, 2019, to file 23 her amended complaint. (Docs. 5, 6.) On December 2, 2019, the Court entered an order to show 24 cause (“OSC’) why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended 25 complaint by November 22, 2019. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff’s response explained that she needed 26 additional time to gather documentation to support her claims. (Doc. 8.) The Court discharged the 27 OSC and gave Plaintiff until January 27, 2020 to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff 1 her enough time to gather the requisite documentation, (Doc. 10), and the Court granted Plaintiff 2 until April 6, 2020, to file an amended complaint, (Doc. 12). To date, Plaintiff has not filed an 3 amended complaint or requested an additional extension of time in which to do so. 4 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 5 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 6 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 7 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 8 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 9 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 10 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 11 on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 12 local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 13 failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 14 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 15 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 16 with local rules). 17 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) days of the 18 date of service of this Order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply 19 with the Court’s February 6, 2020 Order, (Doc. 12), within the specified period of time. The 20 Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to file this statement within fourteen (14) days 21 of the date of service of this Order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge 22 that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Sheila K. Oberto 25 Dated: May 11, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27