(PC) Wilson v. Delano State Prison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON, Case No. 1:21-cv-01651-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD 13 v. NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS 14 OFFICER SHARPS, et al., 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 (Doc. 34) 17 18 On November 16, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging 19 Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 37.) The motion 20 was accompanied by a Rand1 notice, advising Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion 21 for summary judgment. (Doc. 37-14.) 22 Pursuant to the Court’s order setting a briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion for 23 summary judgment, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion was to be 24 filed within 30 days of Defendants’ filing. (Doc. 33 p. 2.) Plaintiff has failed to file either an 25 opposition or a statement of non-opposition and the time to do so has now passed.2 26 1 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 2 After Defendants filed a notice of intent to move for summary judgment but before the filing of their motion, Plaintiff filed a “Motion not to Rule on Summary Judgment to Dismiss Motion on Administrative nen nee ene ne nnn nn II I IIE 1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 2 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 3 | the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 4 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 5 || that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 6 | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 7 | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 8 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with 9 | acourt order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th 10 | Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 11 } 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of 13 || the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply 14 | with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his opposition or 15 || statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Failure to comply with this 16 | order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey court 17 | orders. 18 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: December 22, 2023 | Wr bo 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff’s motion as premature, “within 30 days of Defendants’ filing of any motion for summary 97 || judgment, Plaintiff is directed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition.” (Doc.36 at 2.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing of his motion seeking to delay the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion for 28 || summary judgment did not relieve Plaintiff of his obligations related to responding to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.