(PC) Barrett v. Messer ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAUN MICHAEL BARRETT, Case No. 1:20-cv-01313-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 M. MESSER, et al., 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 On May 22, 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended 19 complaint. (Docs. 31 & 32.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s oppositions or statements 20 of non-opposition to the motions were to be filed “not more than twenty-one (21) days after the 21 date of service of the motion.” More than 21 days have passed, yet Plaintiff has filed neither 22 oppositions nor statements of non-opposition to Defendants’ motions. 23 Moreover, in this case, Plaintiff was advised in the Court’s May 26, 2023 Order1 that the 24 deadline for opposing Defendants’ pending motions to dismiss was June 12, 2023, and that any 25 request for an extension of time should be filed prior to that date. (See Doc. 34 at 4.) Plaintiff has 26 not sought an extension of time within which to file oppositions to the pending motions to 27 1 Order Construing Plaintiff’s Filing As Motion For Settlement Conference and Order Denying Plaintiff’s 1 | dismiss. 2 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 3 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with .. . any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 | the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 5 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 6 | that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 7 | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 8 | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 9 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 10 | court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 11 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 12 | 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 14 | the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 15 || with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his opposition or 16 || statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Bugarin, Clark, Liang, 17 | Mecum, Messer, Ramirez and Silva, and his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 18 | motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Sullivan. 19 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 20 | dismissed for failure to obey court orders. 21 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ** 1 Dated: _ June 27, 2023 | Wr bo 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28