Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al.

E.D. California

Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al.

DecidedFebruary 20, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-02361

StatusUnknown

This text of Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al. (Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN D. COOK, Case No. 2:25-cv-2361-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 NEWREZ LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 14, 2026, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a 18 claim. ECF No. 12. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or 19 a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that 20 order. 21 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 22 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 23 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 24 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 26 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 27 to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 28 (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 his 2 | failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute 3 | another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action 4 | bedismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case 5 | should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to 6 | state aclaim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen 7 | days, an amended complaint. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 19, 2026 q———_ 1] JEREMY D. PETERSON 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN D. COOK, Case No. 2:25-cv-2361-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 NEWREZ LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On January 14, 2026, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a 18 claim. ECF No. 12. I ordered plaintiff to file, within thirty days, either an amended complaint or 19 a notice of voluntary dismissal of this action. Id. To date, plaintiff has not complied with that 20 order. 21 The court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 22 power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal. Bautista v. Los Angeles Cnty., 23 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); see Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to 24 comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the 25 Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”). A court may dismiss 26 an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure 27 to comply with local rules. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) 28 (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 his 2 | failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs failure to respond to this order will constitute 3 | another failure to comply with a court order and will result in a recommendation that this action 4 | bedismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fourteen days why this case 5 | should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to 6 | state aclaim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, within fourteen 7 | days, an amended complaint. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ February 19, 2026 q———_ 1] JEREMY D. PETERSON 1 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stephen D. Cook v. Newrez LLC, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephen-d-cook-v-newrez-llc-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack