Edwards v. Department of Human Services

E.D. California

Edwards v. Department of Human Services

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 23, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-01726·Unknown

Opinion

DEEJANEA EDWARDS, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01726-AWI-BAK (EPG) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE v. ) TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ) DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et ) [21-DAY DEADLINE] al., ) ) Defendants. )

On December 14, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint and directed the plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) More than thirty days have passed, and the plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint.1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

1 The Court notes that after the mailed order was returned as undeliverable, a notice of change of address was filed (ECF action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, ) 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of th date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, the plaintiff may file a first amended complaint. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the Court dismiss the action. pated: _May 23, 2022 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DEEJANEA EDWARDS, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01726-AWI-BAK (EPG) ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE v. ) TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ) DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et ) [21-DAY DEADLINE] al., ) ) Defendants. )

On December 14, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint and directed the plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (ECF No. 3.) More than thirty days have passed, and the plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint.1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an

1 The Court notes that after the mailed order was returned as undeliverable, a notice of change of address was filed (ECF action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, ) 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of th date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, the plaintiff may file a first amended complaint. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the Court dismiss the action. pated: _May 23, 2022 [see ey UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Edwards v. Department of Human Services, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Edwards v. Department of Human Services (Edwards v. Department of Human Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related