Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02410/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02410-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMIR EKUNWE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-2410-TLN-EFB PS (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Amir Ekunwe is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, 

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

 On January 13, 2016, the undersigned issued an order setting this matter for a Status 

(Pretrial Scheduling) Conference on February 10, 2016. ECF No. 15. That order also directed 

plaintiff to file a status report on or before January 27, 2016. Plaintiff, however, has failed to do 

so. 

Local Rule 110 provides that failure to comply with any order of this 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.” See also 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.”). Pro se 

litigants are bound by the rules of procedure, even though pleadings are liberally construed in 

their favor. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Case 2:14-cv-02410-TLN-DB Document 17 Filed 02/03/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, it is hereby ORDERED that: 

 1. The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is continued to March 2, 2016. 

 2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, no later than February 17, 2016, why sanctions 

should not be imposed for the failure to timely file a status report. 

 3. Plaintiff shall file a status report no later than February 17, 2016. 

 4. Failure of plaintiff to file a status report may result in a recommendation that this this 

action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with court orders. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 

 5. Defendants need not file another status report. 

DATED: February 3, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-02410-TLN-DB Document 17 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 2