Ali v. TransUnion Corp. ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 HUSSEIN ALI, Case No. 1:19-cv-00450-AWI-SKO 14 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 15 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND 16 FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, 17 INC., 18 Defendant. 19 _____________________________________/ 20 On March 5, 2019, Plaintiff Hussein Ali, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 21 Defendants Trans Union, LLC1 and Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in Fresno County 22 Superior Court. (Doc. 1-1.) On April 5, 2019, Defendant Experian removed the case to this court. 23 (Doc. 1.) 24 25 The Court set a Mandatory Scheduling Conference for June 27, 2019, and ordered the parties 26 to file a Joint Scheduling Report by June 20, 2019. (Doc. 2.) 27 28 1 On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduling conference. (Doc. 11.) Thus, 2 the Court continued the scheduling conference to August 8, 2019, and directed the parties to file an 3 updated joint scheduling report by August 1, 2019. (Id.) The Court also warned Plaintiff: “The 4 Court ADMONISHES Plaintiff that if he fails to appear without good cause at the scheduling 5 conference on August 8, 2019, the Court will recommend to the assigned district judge that 6 Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court 7 order.” (Id.) (emphasis in original). On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff failed to appear at the Mandatory 8 Scheduling Conference. (See Doc. 14.) 9 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of 10 a party to comply with … any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court 11 of any and all sanctions … within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; see also 12 E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a). “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in 13 exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson 14 v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an 15 action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court 16 order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 17 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 18 Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply 19 with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for 20 failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 21 Accordingly, due to Plaintiff’s pattern of disregard for the Court’s orders in this case, and 22 his failure to appear at the June 27, 2019, and the August 8, 2019, scheduling conference dates, 23 Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of the date of 24 service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for Plaintiff’s complaint to be 25 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: August 8, 2019 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28