Flores v. City of Bakersfield

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00229
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RUBEN RIVAS FLORES, Case No. 1:24-cv-00229-KES-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY SANCTIONS OF $100 PER DAY 13 v. (Doc. 25) 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Background 19 On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a stipulated request for an order granting Plaintiff leave 20 to file a first amended complaint, attaching thereto the proposed first amended complaint. (Doc. 21 23). On June 13, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ request and directed Plaintiff to file the 22 proposed first amended complaint as a stand-alone docket entry within seven days of issuance of 23 the Court’s order. (Doc. 24). Plaintiff failed to timely file the complaint or make any filings 24 explaining the delinquency. Accordingly, on June 23, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show 25 cause within two days why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with a court 26 order. Alternatively, Plaintiff was permitted to comply with the show cause order by filing a first 27 amended complaint by the same deadline. Plaintiff was admonished that “[a]ny failure by Plaintiff 28 to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.” (Doc. 25). 1 Plaintiff’s deadline to respond to the order to show cause has passed and Plaintiff has filed 2 neither a first amended complaint nor any other document seeking an extension or other relief. 3 Governing Authority 4 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the underlying purpose of the rules is to 5 secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. To effectuate 6 this purpose, the rules provide for sanctions against parties that fail to comply with court orders or 7 that unnecessarily multiply the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b). 8 Relevant here, Rule 16(f) authorizes the Court to issue any just order if a party or attorney fails to 9 obey a scheduling or other pretrial order. 10 The Court also possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs 11 so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 12 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all 13 others, including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority 14 and dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). In order to 15 compel a party to comply with the Court’s orders, the Court may issue daily sanctions until 16 compliance is obtained. See Lasar v. Ford Motor Co., 399 F.3d 1101, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) 17 (discussing court’s authority to impose civil sanctions “intended to be remedial by coercing the 18 defendant to do what he had refused to do.”). 19 Similarly, the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[f]ailure of 20 counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for 21 imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent 22 power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. Further, “[i]n the event any attorney subject to these 23 Rules engages in conduct that may warrant discipline or other sanctions, any Judge or Magistrate 24 Judge may initiate proceedings for contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 42, or may, 25 after reasonable notice and opportunity to show cause to the contrary, take any other appropriate 26 disciplinary action against the attorney.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 184(a). “In addition to or in lieu of the 27 foregoing, the Judge or Magistrate Judge may refer the matter to the disciplinary body of any Court 28 before which the attorney has been admitted to practice.” Id. 1 Discussion 2 Here, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint as a stand-alone entry on 3 | the docket. See (Doc. 24). When Plaintiff failed to comply, the Court ordered compliance at risk 4 | of sanction. See (Doc. 25). Still, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders. Aside from 5 | evidencing Plaintiff's lack of regard for complying with court orders, Plaintiff's intransigence is 6 || preventing the Court from efficiently managing its docket in this action. Accordingly, the Court 7 | finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate to compel Plaintiff to comply with this Court’s orders. 8 | Therefore, to gain Plaintiff's compliance, a $100 sanction shall be imposed on Plaintiff 9 | commencing on the date of this order and shall continue to be imposed each day thereafter until 10 | Plaintiff files a first amended complaint. Plaintiff's filing of a first amended complaint on the date 11 | of this order will not relieve Plaintiff of the sanction imposed commencing on this date. Further, 12 | the daily deadline shall expire at the close of business each day at 5:00 p.m. 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Ruben Rivas Flores shall 15 | pay the Clerk of the Court $100 per day, beginning on the date of this order, until Plaintiff files a 16 | first amended complaint as a stand-alone entry on the docket. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 26, 2025 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28