(PC) Villery v. Crounse ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JARED M. VILLERY, Case No. 1:18-cv-01623-JLT-SKO (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER 14 D. CROUNSE, et al., 15 Defendants. 21-DAY DEADLINE 16 On November 1, 2022, this Court issued its Order Lifting Stay on Summary Judgment 17 Briefing and Order Setting 21-Day Deadline for the Filing of Plaintiff’s Opposition. (Doc. 131.) 18 Plaintiff was ordered to “file his separate opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion 19 for summary judgment filed by Defendant Crounse, and to the motion for summary judgment 20 filed by Defendants Garcia, Groves, Guerrero, Haak and Holland, no later than 21 days 21 following the date of service of this order.” (Id. at 3, bold in original.) Although more 21 days 22 have passed, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the 23 pending motion for summary judgment, or to otherwise respond to the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 25 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 26 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 27 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 1 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 2 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 3 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 4 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 5 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 6 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 7 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 8 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of 9 the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply 10 with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his opposition or 11 statement of non-opposition to Defendant Crounse’s motion for summary judgment and his 12 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by 13 Defendants Garcia, Groves, Guerrero, Haak and Holland. 14 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 15 dismissed for failure to obey court orders. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 30, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27