Flores v. City of Bakersfield

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN RIVAS FLORES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00229-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 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULES

15 Defendants. TEN (10)-DAY DEADLINE

16 Clerk of the Court to Effect Manual Service

17 18 Plaintiff Ruben Rivas Flores (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 19 complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California/County of Kern, against Defendants 20 City of Bakersfield, Jason Gonzalez, Kayla Wainright, Chase Hammons, Jeffrey Martin 21 (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1-100, on January 5, 2024. (Doc. 2). Defendants 22 removed the action to this Court on February 22, 2024. Id. Defendants filed a proof of service 23 reflecting they served the notice of removal and related documents on Plaintiff through counsel of 24 record via email and U.S. Postal mail. (Doc. 4). 25 On the same date this action was removed, the Clerk of the Court issued new case 26 documents and directed counsel for Plaintiff to apply for admissions to practice before this Court. 27 (Docs. 5-6). Among other things, the new case documents directed Plaintiff to file an enclosed “Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” form within 14 days of the date of 1 removal. (Doc. 5 at 2). 2 On February 23, 2024, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain state law causes of 3 action. (Doc. 7). Defendants’ motion includes a proof of service reflecting they served the 4 motion papers on Plaintiff through counsel of record via email and U.S. Postal mail. Id.. The 5 deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion to dismiss 6 was March 8, 2024. See Local Rule 230(c). Plaintiff did not timely file an opposition or 7 statement of non-opposition, which the Court may construe as a non-opposition to the motion. Id. 8 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, 9 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for 10 the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 11 Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising 12 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 13 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 14 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., 15 Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a 16 court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 17 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 18 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 19 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within ten (10) days 20 of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to 21 prosecute and to comply with the Local Rules. 22 Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may comply with this order by (1) counsel 23 filing his application for admissions to practice in this District, (2) counsel filing a 24 consent/decline form, and (3) counsel filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to 25 Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Failure to comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions up to and 2 | including financial sanctions and a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 3 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to effect manual service of this Order on counsel 4 | for Plaintiff at his email address and mailing address of record (see Docs. 4, 7). 5 | IT IS SO ORDERED. ° | Dated: _-Mareh 11, 2024 | nnd Rr 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28