Dibbern v. City of Bakersfield ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY DIBBERN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00723-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE JOINT REPORT 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL., (ECF No. 3) 15 Defendant. TWO DAY DEADLINE 16 17 On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983 seeking damages for defendants’ alleged excessive use of force, denial of medical care, 19 municipal liability, conspiracy to violate civil rights and related state law causes of action. (ECF 20 No. 1.) On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an order setting a scheduling conference on October 21 18, 2022, and requiring that the parties, among other things, file a “Joint Scheduling Report” at 22 least “one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference.” (ECF No. 3 at p.2). Neither party 23 requested a continuance of the scheduling conference set for October 18, 2022. 24 On October 11, 2022, defendants filed a scheduling report in which the City Defendants 25 represented they “attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs to prepare a joint 26 report; however, counsel for Plaintiff is currently in trial and was not available to provide 27 Plaintiff’s portions prior to the close of business” on the date of the filing. (ECF No. 14 at p.1). The following day (October 12, 2022), the Court ordered Plaintiff by 5:00pm that day to comply 1 | with his obligation to confer with defendants and file a scheduling report. (ECF No. 15). To 2 | date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order, as well. 3 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 4 | Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 5 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 6 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 7 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 8 | 2000). 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within two (2) days of entry of 10 | this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for 11 | failing to timely comply with his obligation to confer with defendants and submit a joint 12 | scheduling report and for failing to comply with the Court’s most recent order to submit a report 13 | in this matter. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16| Dated: _October 13, 2022 _ Dh~— 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28