Koresko v. Cook

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 6, 2021·No. 1:21-cv-01432·Unknown

Opinion

JOHN J KORESKO, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01432-DAD-JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE v. ) TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS ) TURHAN COOK, an individual, et al., ) [21-DAY DEADLINE]

Defendants. ) ) )

On October 21, 2021, the Court dismissed the complaint and directed the plaintiff to file a first amended complaint within thirty days. (Doc. 5.) More than thirty days have passed, and the plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint. The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply 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.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 21 days of the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, the plaintiff may file a first amended complaint. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the Court dismiss the action.

Dated: December 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Koresko v. Cook, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Koresko v. Cook (Koresko v. Cook) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Henderson v. Duncan
779 F.2d 1421 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)