(PC) Lewis v. Quinto

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN LEWIS, JR., Case No.: 1:22-cv-00628-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER 14 ALAN QUINTO, et al., (Docs. 65, 67) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Kevin Lewis, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 19 Defendants Alan Guinto,1 Bobby Gilbert, and Shannon Brown (collectively, “Defendants”) for 20 violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. 21 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 22 On February 10, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 23 65). In its order, the Court directed the parties to file within 21 days a joint report identifying two 24 dates of mutual availability to convene for pretrial conference and trial. (Id. at 7). 25 The docket represents that Plaintiff refused to accept service of the Court’s February 10 26 1 The Court notes that Defendant Alan Guinto may have been misspelled or misidentified 27 as “Alan Quinto” on the docket. Plaintiff raises the misspelling of Defendant Guinto’s name in his motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 56, 57). Defendants identify “Guinto” in their 1 order. See (Dkt. entry dated 2/24/2025). On February 27, 2025, Defendants filed a notice in 2 which counsel for Defendants represents that despite multiple attempts, he has been unable to 3 confer with Plaintiff in as directed by the Court in its February 10 order regarding his availability 4 for trial given Plaintiff has refused to participate in multiple scheduled telephone calls to confer 5 regarding the Court’s order. (Id. at 1). Specifically, counsel for Defendants declares that the 6 litigation coordinator at California State Prison, Sacramento, where Plaintiff is housed, informed 7 him by email that Plaintiff refused two scheduled calls to confer with counsel to comply with the 8 Court’s order. (Id. at 3 ¶¶ 3-4). Because of Plaintiff’s refusals, Defendants have been unable to 9 confer with Plaintiff and comply with the Court’s order. (Id. at 1). Thus, Defendants request an 10 order directing Plaintiff comply with the Court’s order and participate in the meet-and-confer 11 process or alternatively, to allow Defendants to submit a report of their own availability to the 12 Court. (Id. at 2). 13 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provides that 15 “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 16 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of 17 the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and 18 may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the 19 action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A court may dismiss 20 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with 21 local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for 22 failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 23 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson 24 v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply 25 with local rules). 26 Here, Plaintiff has refused to accept service of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s 27 motions for summary judgment which ordered the parties to file a joint report identifying two 1 | refusals to accept service of the order and otherwise engage in the meet-and-confer efforts of 2 | counsel for Defendants constitutes a failure to comply with the Court’s order. Thus, Plaintiff will 3 | be ordered to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 4 | comply with this Court’s order and the Local Rules. 5 | Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing within 14 7 | days of the date of service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to 8 | comply with the Court’s order and the Local Rules, as set forth herein. 9 Any further refusal by Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s orders and the Local 10 | Rules, whether by refusing service of this order or by failing to respond, will result in the 11 | imposition of sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the action. 12 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _-Mareh 4, 2025 | br 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28