(PS) Love v. Tri-Counties Bank ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARY LOVE, 2:22-cv-01761-KJM-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 TRI-COUNTIES BANK, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding with the assistance of counsel, filed this fee-paid complaint on 18 October 6, 2022. (ECF No. 1.) On August 1, 2023, plaintiff’s counsel and defendants filed a 19 joint discovery dispute letter informing the court that plaintiff had ceased communication after 20 filing an initial response to defendant’s discovery requests. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff’s counsel 21 filed a motion to withdraw as her attorney on August 2, 2023 and on September 8, 2023, the 22 assigned district judge granted counsel’s motion. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) The court ordered plaintiff 23 to retain new counsel or indicate plaintiff's intent to proceed pro se within thirty days of receiving 24 a copy of the court’s order. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) 25 Upon expiration of the thirty-day deadline, and having received no notice from plaintiff, 26 the assigned district judge referred this pro se action to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 27 302(c)(21) for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 23.) 28 ] A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiffs case 2 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her 3 || case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s 4 | local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court 5 || “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation 6 || Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals 7 || under Rule 41(b)); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to 8 | follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 9 | F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 || Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of 11 || the court.”). This court’s Local Rules are in accord. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel 12 | or ofa party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 13 || imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the 14 || inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to 15 || comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and other applicable 16 || law may support, among other things, dismissal of that party’s action). 17 Given plaintiffs failure to notify the court within the window ordered by the district 18 || judge, this action is on the verge of being dismissed. Accordingly, within fourteen days of the 19 || date of this order, plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed 20 | under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with 21 || court orders. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: November 2, 2023 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce CAROLYNK. DELANEY 25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 21, love.1761 27 28