Cuellar v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 7, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JIMMY CUELLAR, Case No. 1:23-cv-01075-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO 14 THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPLAY WITH LOCAL RULES COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 10-DAY DEADLINE Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jimmy Cuellar is proceeding pro se this action. Plaintiff originally filed this 19 action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, on June 7, 2023. (Doc. 1 20 p. 1). On July 19, 2023, Defendant The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America removed 21 this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. (Id.) 22 On July 20, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 5). Pursuant to Local Rule 23 230(c), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was to be filed “no later than 24 fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed.” More than 14 days have passed; however, 25 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion. 26 Finally, the Court notes Plaintiff has not sought an extension of time within which to file an 27 opposition to Defendant’s motion. 1 | “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 2 | the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 3 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 4 | that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 5 | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 6 | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 7 | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 8 | court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 9 | 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 10 | 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 11 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 10 days of 12 | the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 13 | prosecute and to comply with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may 14 | file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. 15 Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be 16 | dismissed. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _ August 7, 2023 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28