Elmer v. Hinkley

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN ELMER, Case No. 1:24-cv-00871-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT HINKLEY, et al., ORDER AND WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Defendants. (ECF No. 6) NOVEMBER 27, 2024 DEADLINE Plaintiff commenced this action on July 30, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) A scheduling conference is currently set for December 5, 2024. (ECF No. 5.) Because Plaintiff had not returned service documents and Defendants have not filed a responsive pleading, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a notice regarding the status of service on Defendants no later than November 20, 2024. (ECF No. 6.) The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the November 13, 2024 order may result in the issuance of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of this action. Plaintiff failed to file a notice of status of service by November 20, 2024 as required by the Court’s November 13, 2024 order. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 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.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than November 27, 2024 why this matter should not be dismissed failure to prosecute and why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to respond to the Court’s November 13, 2024 Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause in writing may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ November 21, 2024 STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge