Nunes v. County of Stanislaus ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELINA NUNES, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS 13 v. SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 14 COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al., (ECF No. 98) 15 Defendants. DEADLINE: JULY 11, 2022 16 17 18 Plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and L.X.’s (collectively 19 “Plaintiffs”) initiated this civil action against Defendants County of Stanislaus, Kristen Johnson, 20 and Eric Anderson on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) This action arises from the temporary removal 21 of Plaintiffs’ minor children from their custody by Defendants for a period of fifty-one days 22 during the summer of 2016, which Plaintiffs claim was unlawful and without a warrant or exigent 23 circumstances. (Id.) On March 21, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a petition for minor’s compromise, 24 which Defendants have not opposed. (ECF No. 91.) The matter was referred to a United States 25 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 26 On May 31, 2022, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 27 recommending that the petition for minor’s compromise as to Plaintiffs D.X. and L.X.’s claims be 28 granted and the settlement be approved. (ECF No. 97.) No parties objected to the findings and 1 | recommendations and on June 21, 2022, the district judge adopted the findings and 2 || recommendations in full. (ECF No. 98.) The parties were directed to file a stipulation or request 3 | for dismissal of the action within fourteen days, or July 5, 2022.! (Id. at 2.) The Court notes that 4 | the deadline to file dispositional documents has expired, but nothing has been filed. 5 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 6 | or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 7 | sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 8 | control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 9 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 10 | 2000). 11 The Court shall require the parties to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the 12 | failure to file dispositional documents in compliance with the Court’s June 21, 2022 order. 13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1. The parties shall show cause in writing no later than July 11, 2022, why 15 monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file dispositional documents 16 as required by the June 21, 2022 order; and 17 2. Failure to comply with this order will result in the issuance of sanctions. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 20 | Dated: _July 6, 2022 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 | The district judge’s order also remanded the matter to the magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with 28 || his order. (ECF No. 98 at 2.)