Marsh v. Bank of Sierra, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TERRANCE MARSH, Case No. 1:22-cv-00508-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 BANK OF SIERRA, INC. et al. 21-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 On February 6, 2023, the Court found Plaintiff Terrance Marsh (“Plaintiff”) appeared to 18 state a cognizable claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Defendants Bank of Sierra, 19 Inc., Margaret Droese, and Karen Mitchell. (Doc. 15). On February 9, 2023, the Court issued an 20 order directing the Clerk of Court to provide Plaintiff documents necessary for service including, 21 three summons, three USM-285 forms, and instructions. (Doc. 16). The Court ordered Plaintiff 22 to complete all necessary documents for service within 30 days from the date of the order. Id. at 23 2. 24 On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely notice of submission of documents. (Doc. 17). 25 Plaintiff sent his completed documents to the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s proposed summonses for 26 each of the Defendants identify the service address as P.O. Box 1930 Porterville, CA 93258. The 27 Court determined the proposed address was inappropriate for personal service because it is a P.O. box, whereas service should be accomplished at a physical address. (Doc. 18). On March 15, 1 | 2023, the Court issued a second order for service of the second amended complaint instructing 2 | Plaintiff to complete the USM-285 forms for the defendants with actual, physical street addresses 3 | for all the defendants. 7d. Plaintiff was instructed “failure to comply with this order will result in 4 | arecommendation that this action be dismissed.” /d. at 2. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff 5 | has failed to complete and return the USM-285 forms for service as ordered by this Court. 6 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 7 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 8 sanctions...within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control 9 its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 10 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within 21 days of entry of this order, Plaintiff 12 shall show cause in writing why sanctions, including dismissal, should not be imposed for 13 Plaintiff's failure to complete and return the USM-285 forms for service as ordered by this Court. 14 Plaintiffs failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 15 || action be dismissed. 16 | IT IS □□ ORDERED. 'T | Dated: _ April 19, 2023 | Wr bo 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28