(PC) Morales v. Gamboa

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 28, 2019
• Docket: 1:17-cv-01673
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE LORENZO MORALES, Case No.: 1:17-cv-01673-AWI-JLT (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

14 R. TORRES, et al., 7-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 On May 17, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, 19 appointing Attorney Justin Palmer to represent Plaintiff in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 20 § 1983. (Doc. 53.) The Court requests voluntary assistance of Counsel in section 1983 cases only 21 in exceptional circumstances. Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997). On July 3, 22 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54.) To date, Plaintiff’s counsel 23 has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion on behalf of Plaintiff, nor has he requested an 24 extension of time. 25 “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising that 26 power, may impose sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Auth., City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 27 831 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766-67 (1980) (holding that monetary sanctions against counsel are within the inherent powers of courts). Accordingly, 1 Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 7 days of the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed on Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to prosecute this action. 2 Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for 3 summary judgment, or a motion or stipulation requesting an extension of time to file an 4 opposition. 5

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 26, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27