Opinion
Case No.: 1:11-cv-01242 - AWI-JLT
07-23-2015
VICTOR JONES, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD MOORE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO DEFENDANT RICHARD MOORE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR HIS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
On June 22, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to prepare and file a Joint Scheduling Conference Statement for a conference to be held on July 23, 2015. (Doc. 41) However, Defendant Richard Moore failed to participate in the preparation of the statement, and failed to appear at the Scheduling Conference.
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." Local Rule 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 impose sanctions for a party's failure 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) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanction against the plaintiff for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
Accordingly, within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order, Defendant Richard Moore is ORDERED to show cause in writing why sanctions—including striking his Answer and entering default—should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court's order. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23 , 2015
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE