Meghan Cole v. Shanddah Burkholder

Opinion

MEGHAN COLE, Case No. 2:24-cv-0792-DC-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Defendant. On February 28, 2025, the court granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered her to submit documents for service of process to the United States Marshal within sixty days. ECF No. 4. The court also ordered plaintiff to file declaration stating the date on which she submitted the required documents to the U.S. Marshal. Id. Despite the February 28 order, there is no indication from the docket that plaintiff submitted documents for service to the U.S. Marshal. The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure 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.”). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See Henderson vy. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). I will give plaintiff a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for failure to comply with the February 28, 2025 order. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. ? | IT IS SO ORDERED.

JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE