Opinion
1:23-cv-00011-ADA-SKO
08-16-2023
ANTHONY JEBIAN, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL
(Doc. 5)
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
SHEILA K. OBERTO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 30, 2022, Plaintiff Anthony Jebian filed the complaint in this action. (Doc. 1.) Given that Defendant Monsanto Company had not yet appeared in this case, on June 15, 2023, the Court continued the scheduling conference originally set for June 22, 2023, to August 22, 2023. (See Doc. 5.) The Court further directed Plaintiff to file proof of service of the complaint in this action on Defendant or a status report indicating whether Plaintiff intended to prosecute this case. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has filed neither a proof of service nor a status report on the docket.
The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide, “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be dismissed for Plaintiff's failure comply with the Court's order and for failure to prosecute his case. Alternatively, within that same time period, Plaintiff may file proof of service of the complaint in this case on Defendant or a notice of voluntary dismissal. The Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to take action within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, the Court will recommend to a presiding district court judge that this action be dismissed in its entirety.
The Court hereby CONTINUES the scheduling conference set for August 22, 2023, to December 7, 2023, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.