Gastelum v. Hie River Park LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2024
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 1:23-cv-00472-JLT-SKO

10 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 11 v. ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL 12 AND VACATING SCHEDULING HIE RIVER PARK LLC dba Holiday Inn CONFERENCE 13 Express Fresno Riverpark, (Doc. 21) 14 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE _____________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in this action on 17 March 28, 2023. (Docs. 1, 2, 3, & 4.) 18 On September 10, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a status report 19 indicating whether they contend to continue to prosecute this case by no later than December 10, 20 2024. (Doc. 21.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a status report or requested an extension of time 21 within which to do so. 22 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 23 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 24 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 26 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 27 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 28 1 Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 2 to prosecute an action or to obey a court order. See, e.g., Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 3 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 4 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 6 date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 7 dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his 8 case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. The 9 Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 10 service of this order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action 11 be dismissed, in its entirety. 12 In view of the foregoing, the Scheduling Conference set for December 17, 2024, is 13 VACATED, to be reset, if appropriate, on a later date. 14 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 15 on the docket for this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17

18 Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28