Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01913/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01913-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

LAMAR SHAY RODGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

GRAETT MAXWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-1913 KJN P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a former prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c). Defendants’ motion to compel plaintiff’s appearance at deposition and to extend 

the discovery deadline is before the court. By order filed July 16, 2015, plaintiff was directed to 

file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion no more than twenty-one days 

after July 6, 2015, and was warned that failure to do so may be deemed a waiver of any 

opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the imposition of sanctions. (ECF No. 

33 at 1.) 

Plaintiff’s filing was due on July 27, 2015. That date has passed, and plaintiff has not 

filed an opposition, statement of no opposition, or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 permits the court to impose sanctions -- including 

dismissal -- on a party that fails to attend a properly noticed deposition. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). 

Case 2:14-cv-01913-TLN-KJN Document 34 Filed 08/13/15 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

Moreover, the court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that 

power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los 

Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why defendants’ 

motion to compel should not be granted, and why this action should not be dismissed for 

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this 

order will result in the dismissal of this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days from the date of this 

order, plaintiff shall show cause why defendants’ motion to compel (ECF No. 31) should not be 

granted, and why this action should not be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this 

action. Failure to respond to this order to show cause will result in the dismissal of this action.

Dated: August 13, 2015

/rodg1913.osc

Case 2:14-cv-01913-TLN-KJN Document 34 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 2