Solesbee v. County of Inyo

Full title: TANYA SOLESBEE, Plaintiff. v. COUNTY OF INYO, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 11, 2013

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1548 AWI JLT (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:13-cv-1548 AWI JLT

12-11-2013

TANYA SOLESBEE, Plaintiff. v. COUNTY OF INYO, et al., Defendants.

Jennifer L. Thurston

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE MATTER

SHOULD NOT BE DFMISSED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AND FOLLOW THE COURT'S

ORDERS

Tanya Solesbee initiated this action by filing a complaint on September 24, 2013. (Doc. 1). The same day, the Court issued civil case documents and an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 6) The Court explained a scheduling conference could not be held until the defendant was served with the summons and complaint. Id. at 1. Therefore, the Court instructed: "plaintiff[] shall diligently pursue service of summons and complaint . . ." Id. Further, Plaintiff was directed to "file proofs of service of the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service." Id. at 1-2. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file proofs of service, and has not complied with the Court's orders regarding service.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure 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." LR 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 upon a party's failure to obey a court order, failure to prosecute an action, 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).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court's orders, or in the alternative, to file proof of service indicating the defendant has been served with the documents required by the Court's orders.

Failure to respond appropriately to this order will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE