Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-436-KJM-EFB PS
07-02-2012
KAREN JOHNS-SMITH, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 20, 2012, defendants removed this action from Sacramento County Superior Court. Dckt. No. 1. The same day, the court issued its initial scheduling order. Dckt. No. 3. That order directed plaintiff to complete service of process within 120 days (see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 4(m)), and set a scheduling conference for July 11, 2012. Id. The order further directed the parties to file status reports no later than fourteen days prior to the July 11, 2012 scheduling conference (or by June 27, 2012), and cautioned the parties that failure to obey the federal or local rules or orders of the court could result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed. Id.
On June 27, 2012, defendants filed a status report. Dckt. No. 5. However, the docket reveals that plaintiff has failed to file a status report, as required by the February 20, 2012 order. Defendants' status report also indicates that defendants have not yet been served with process in this action and that, as a result, the case should be dismissed for failure to timely serve under Rule 4(m). Id. at 2. Therefore, the undersigned will continue the status (pretrial scheduling) conference and will order plaintiff to show cause why this case and/or any unserved defendants should not be dismissed as a result of plaintiff's failure to follow court orders and/or plaintiff's failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m). Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l)(1) (requiring that proof of service be made to the court); E.D. Cal. L.R. 210(b) (same); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 ("Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court."); E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 ("Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local Rules."); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Failure to follow a district court's local rules is a proper ground for dismissal."). Failure to timely comply with this order may result in sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, for failure to follow this court's orders and Local Rules, and/or for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Status Conference currently scheduled for July 11, 2012, is rescheduled for September 5, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before August 22, 2012, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to prosecute and for failure to follow court orders and Local Rules.
3. Also on or before August 22, 2012, plaintiff shall file a proof of timely service on defendants, or shall show cause, in writing, why any unserved defendants should not be dismissed for failure to effect service of process within the time prescribed by Rule 4(m).
4. Also on or before August 22, 2012, plaintiff shall file a status report addressing the matters set forth in the February 20, 2012 order.
5. Defendants are not required to file a further status report or a response to plaintiff's status report, but if they elect to do so, any such status report or response to plaintiff's status report shall be filed on or before August 29, 2012.
6. Failure of plaintiff to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution, for failure to comply with this court's orders and Local Rules, and/or for failure to timely serve defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), 41(b).
SO ORDERED.
_______________
EDMUND F. BRNNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE