Davis v. Walmart Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT DONALD DAVIS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01381-ADA-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 WALMART INC, ET AL., THIS ACTION AND TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 15 Defendants. ECF No. 18 16 THREE-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Defendants removed this case to federal court on October, 26, 2022. (ECF No. 1). The 19 following day, the Court entered an Order setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (ECF No. 20 6). The Order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and 21 “promptly file proofs of service.” The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently 22 prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 23 unserved defendants.” 24 On March 28, 2023, the parties convened for a scheduling conference after which the 25 Court entered a scheduling order. (ECF Nos. 16, 17). That same day, the Court issued an order 26 to show cause requiring Plaintiff to report in writing why defendant Angie Carreles, who has not 27 answered or appeared in this action, should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to timely 28 effect service and file proof of service. (Doc. 18, citing Rule 4(m), Fed. R. Civ. P). Plaintiff has 1 || failed to timely comply with the order to show cause. Accordingly, on April 7, 2023, the Court 2 || issued findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge that Defendant Carreles be 3 || dismissed from the action. (ECF No. 19). 4 Local Rule 110 provides that “[fJailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 5 || Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 6 || sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 7 || control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 8 || including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 9 || 2000). 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of entry 11 || of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for the 12 || failure to file proofs of service in this action and diligently prosecute this action in preparation of 13 || the scheduling conference, and for the failure to timely respond to the Court’s March 28, 2023 14 || order. 15 Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of 16 || sanctions, including monetary sanctions and a potential recommendation that this action be 17 || dismissed. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ April 7, 2023 | Word 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28