(HC) Estell v. Trate

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES B. ESTELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-01022-CDB (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER REQURING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT v. BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE CONSENT OR REASSIGNMENT FORM ECF No. 6 Respondent. THREE-DAY DEADLINE On August 15, 2022, Petitioner Charles B. Estell filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). On August 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to complete and file a “Consent / Decline of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” form not later than October 3, 2022. (ECF No. 6). To date, Respondent has not filed the required form and it is more than 30 days past due. Instead, on October 27, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10). 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 County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to timely comply with his obligation to complete and return the Consent / Decline of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form, including striking Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10). Dated: _ November 4, 2022 | ) Ww Me D RY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE