Granucci v. United States Postal Service ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN GRANUCCI, Case No. 1:22-cv-01483-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS 14 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE., ORDER RESETTING THE MANDATORY 15 Defendant. SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 16 TEN-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 Plaintiff commenced this action with the filing of a complaint in Kern County Superior 20 Court on October 28, 2022, which was removed by Defendant to this Court on November 17, 21 2022. (ECF No. 1). On the same day, the Clerk of Court issued new case documents including a 22 summons and magistrate judge jurisdiction consent/decline forms. (ECF No. 2). The Clerk of 23 Court also set a mandatory scheduling conference on February 13, 2023. Id. The Initial 24 Scheduling Order (id.) required the parties to return completed jurisdiction consent/decline forms 25 within 14 days of removal of the action (e.g., on or before December 1, 2022); however, as of the 26 date of this Order, Plaintiff has failed to file a completed consent/decline form pursuant to the 27 Court’s instructions. 28 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 1 || Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 2 || sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 3 || control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 4 || including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 5 |} 2000). 6 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, not later than January 17, 2023, 7 || Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 8 || comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a completed jurisdiction 9 || consent/decline form on or before January 17, 2023. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, given that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) 11 || remains pending, that the mandatory scheduling conference set for February 13, 2023, is 12 |} VACATED and rescheduled for May 8, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. 13 The Court notes that Plaintiff has not timely filed a response to Defendant’s Motion to 14 || Dismiss and directs Plaintiff’s attention to Local Rule 230(c), which provides: “A failure to file 15 || a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” 16 Plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in 17 || dismissal of this action. 18 |/ IT IS SO ORDERED. ll Dated: _ January 4, 2023 | br Pr 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28