KIMBERLIN RODRIGUEZ v. DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KIMBERLIN RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00609-EGC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 9 v. FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND TO PROSECUTE, 10 DIRECTOR OF UNITED STATES (2) VACATING THE SCHEDULING CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CONFERENCE SET FOR MAY 21, 2026, 11 SERVICES, & (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON 12 Defendant. PLAINTIFF

13 21-DAY DEADLINE

14 15 On May 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case against Defendant. (Doc. 1). 16 An initial Scheduling Conference was set for September 11, 2025, and then subsequently 17 continued thrice to May 21, 2026. (See Docs. 8, 9, 10). As set forth in the Court’s Order Setting 18 Mandatory Scheduling Conference, (Doc. 4), “[a]ttendance at the Scheduling Conference is 19 mandatory upon each party not represented by counsel or by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2). The 20 parties were also ordered to submit “[a] Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed 21 by all counsel/pro se parties” one week prior to the Scheduling Conference. (See id. (emphasis 22 added)). The Joint Scheduling Report was therefore due on May 14, 2026. No such report has 23 been filed. (See Docket). Additionally, on November 13, 2025, the Court observed that Plaintiff 24 had not filed proof of service of the complaint on Defendant and ordered Plaintiff to file proof of 25 service or a status report indicating whether Plaintiff intends to continue to prosecute this case as 26 to defendant. (Doc. 9). No such proof of service or status report was filed. (See Docket). 27 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 1 | or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 2 | Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L-R. 110. 3 | “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 4 | may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los 5 | Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based 6 | onaparty’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with 7 | local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 8 | failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 9 | 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 10 | v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 11 || with local rules). 12 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) 13 | days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for her failure 14 | to comply with the Court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference, (Doc. 4), and 15 | Order to File Proof of Service or a Status Report, (Doc. 9) and for her failure to prosecute 16 | this case. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if she fails to file this statement within 17 || twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to the presiding 18 | district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 19 The Court also VACATES the Initial Joint Scheduling Conference set for May 21, 2026. 20 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at her address 21 | as reflected on the Docket. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. . 24 | Dated: _ May 18, 2026 C uit Qu | Cay (lo 05 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28