(PC) Hammler v. Hernandez ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, Case No. 1:19-cv-00616 SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 J. HERNANDEZ, 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 31, 2023, Defendant Hernandez filed a motion for terminating sanctions for 18 Plaintiff’s willful failure to participate in a deposition. (See Doc. 64.) Pursuant to Local Rule 19 230(l), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion was to be filed “not 20 more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion.” More than 21 days have 21 passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s 22 motion. 23 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 24 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 25 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 26 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 27 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 28 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 1 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 2 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 3 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 4 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 5 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 7 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 8 with the Court’s orders and the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may 9 file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for terminating sanctions filed by 10 Defendant Hernandez. 11 Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for a failure to 12 obey Court orders. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: June 29, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28