Langer v. Cooke City Raceway, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS LANGER, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01488-JLT-BAK (SAB) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. ) SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR ) FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION 14 COOKE CITY RACEWAY, INC., ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16 17 The plaintiff initiated this action on October 5, 2021. (Doc. 1.) The Clerk of Court issued the 18 summons and the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference the same day. (Docs. 2, 3.) The 19 plaintiff failed to file a proof of service, and the Defendant had not appeared. On December 6, 2021, the 20 Court issued an order to plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to 21 prosecute the action and to serve the summons and complaint in a timely fashion as ordered. (Doc. 5.) 22 On December 8, 2021, the plaintiff filed the proof of service. (Doc. 6.) On December 27, 2021, the 23 plaintiff entered a request to the Clerk of Court for entry of default as to Cooke City Raceway, Inc. 24 (Doc. 10), and the Clerk entered default the same day. (Doc. 11.) However, Plaintiff has not taken any 25 action on this case since and has failed to prosecute the action. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and 28 all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent 1 || power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including 2 || dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 3 || 1986). A court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action with prejudice, based on a 4 || party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local 5 || rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to 6 || prosecute and comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 198 7 || Gmposing sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 8 || 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) Gmposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 10 1. No later than May 18, 2022, the plaintiff SHALL show cause why sanctions should 11 not be imposed for the failure to prosecute this action. Alternatively, within that same 12 time, the plaintiff may file a motion for default judgment as to Cooke City Raceway, 13 Inc. 14 2. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the 15 Court dismiss the action. 16 17 |} ITIS SO ORDERED. Al (ee 18 Dated: _ April 26, 2022 OF 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28