(PC) Martinez v. Lawhorn ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RICARDO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01602-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 D. LAWHORN, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging 19 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 37.) The motion 20 was accompanied by a Rand1 notice, advising Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion 21 for summary judgment. (Doc. 37-4.) 22 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 23 motion was to be filed “not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the 24 motion.” Plaintiff has failed to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition and the 25 time to do so has now passed.2 26 1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 2 Plaintiff filed a “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery” on October 13, 2023. (Doc. 38.) However, 28 filing the motion does not relieve Plaintiff of his obligations related to the motion for summary judgment. 1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 2 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 3 | the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 4 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 5 || that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 6 | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 7 | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 8 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 9 | court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 10 | 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 11 } 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 13 || the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 14 | with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his opposition or 15 || statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Failure to comply with this 16 | order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey court 17 | orders. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ November 6, 2023 | ) Ww Vv `` 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28