Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01931/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01931-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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 July 30, 2013, the Court issued its “Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference,” 

which “ordered that [the parties] appear for a formal Scheduling Conference...” (Doc. 13 at 1) The 

Court explained: “Attendance at the Scheduling Conference is mandatory upon each party not 

represented by counsel or, alternatively, by retained counsel.” (Id. at 2, emphasis in original.) Despite 

this, Plaintiff, Larcenia Taylor, failed to comply with the Court’s order, and did not appear at the 

Scheduling Conference held on May 15, 2014.

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 dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute 

LARCENIA TAYLOR,

 Plaintiff,

v.

REBECCA BLANK, Acting SecretaryUnited States Department of Commerce,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01931 -AWI - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

HER FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE 

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:12-cv-01931-AWI-JLT Document 29 Filed 05/15/14 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

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 

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); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 

Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of 

service of this order why sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, should not be imposed 

for her failure to appear at the Court’s Scheduling Conference and failure to comply with the Court’s 

order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01931-AWI-JLT Document 29 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 2