Mahara K. Smith v. City of Madera, et al.

Opinion

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

9 MAHARA K. SMITH, Case No. 1:23-cv-00915-KES-SKO

10 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE Plaintiff, ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 11 RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL v. 12 FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 13 CITY OF MADERA, et al.,

14 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 15 16 Plaintiff Mahara K. Smith is proceeding pro se in this action filed on June 12, 2023. (Doc. 17 1). On June 20, 2023, the Court issued an order detailing the parties’ obligation to meet and confer 18 to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report in advance of the mandatory initial scheduling conference. 19 (See Doc 5 at 1−6). That order was served on Plaintiff by mail that same day. (See Docket). 20 On November 25, 2025, the parties filed a “Joint Scheduling Report.” (Doc. 27.) Upon 21 review, the Court determined that “the joint scheduling report proposes two schedules, one 22 comprised of Plaintiff's preferences and one of Defendants’ preferences,” (Doc. 28). The Court 23 ordered the parties “to meet and confer to formulate one joint schedule” and warned that “[f]ailure 24 to comply with [that] order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel 25 as well as any party or parties who cause non-compliance with [that] order.” (Id.). That order was 26 served on Plaintiff that same day. (See Docket). 27 On January 22, 2026, the Court held a scheduling conference at which Plaintiff did not 28 appear. (Doc. 32). The Court continued the initial scheduling conference and admonished Plaintiff 1 that “if she fail[ed] to appear without good cause at the scheduling conference . . . the Court may 2 issue sanctions and recommend to the assigned district court judge that Plaintiff’s complaint be 3 dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.” (Id.). That order was 4 served on Plaintiff that same day. (See Docket). 5 When no Joint Scheduling Report was filed before the continued scheduling conference, the 6 Court again continued the conference to March 24, 2026. (Doc. 33). In the order continuing the 7 conference the Court again instructed the parties that “[f]ailure to comply with [that] order may be 8 grounds for the imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any party or parties who 9 cause non-compliance with this order” and “Plaintiff in particular [was] reminded that if she fail[ed] 10 to appear without good cause at the scheduling conference on March 24, 2026, the Court may issue 11 sanctions and recommend to the assigned district court judge that her complaint be dismissed for 12 failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order.” (Doc. 33). That order was served on 13 Plaintiff that same day. (See Docket). 14 No timely Joint Scheduling Report was filed. (See Docket). On March 20, 2026, the Court 15 observed the lack of timely filing along with the numerous warnings of sanctions and ordered the 16 parties to file a Joint Scheduling Report by no later than March 23, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. (Doc. 36). 17 That order was served on Plaintiff that same day. (See Docket). On that same day, Defendants filed 18 a Status Report indicating that Defendants had had no contact with Plaintiff despite several attempts 19 to reach her via the address listed on the docket. (See Doc. 37). Defendants, therefore, represented 20 that they had been unable to meet and confer to produce a Joint Scheduling Report. (See id.). 21 The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 22 corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel 23 or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the 24 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. 25 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court 26 may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of L.A., 27 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to 28 prosecute an action, to obey a court order, or to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 1 963 F.2d 1258, 1260−61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 2 amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 3 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 4 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 5 Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within fourteen (14) 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 to comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute 8 her case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may contact Defendants in order to meet, 9 confer, and prepare a Joint Scheduling Report. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if they 10 fail to act within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend 11 to a presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed, in its entirety. 12 The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at their address listed 13 on the docket for this matter. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15

16 Dated: March 24, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28