Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00760/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00760-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 20, 2014, this Court issued an order setting a status conference in light of this case 

being selected for assignment to a Sacramento District Judge. Plaintiffs and their Counsel Dorinda Jo 

Myers failed to comply with the Court’s order, and did not appear at the Status Conference set for 

August 20, 2014 in Courtroom 8 before Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe. (Doc. 7). Appearance was not 

excused by the Court. 

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 

KRISTA RENEE WILLARD, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-760--BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

Case 1:14-cv-00760-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/21/14 Page 1 of 2
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

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, 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); 

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, Plaintiffs and their counsel Dorinda Myers are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE

in writing, within seven (7) days of the date of service of this Order, why they failed to participate in 

these proceedings and obey the orders of this Court and why sanctions, up to an including terminating 

sanctions, should not be imposed for their failure to appear at the Court’s status conference. Plaintiffs 

are further on notice that failure to timely respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation for dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00760-BAM Document 8 Filed 08/21/14 Page 2 of 2