Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00287/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00287-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

Plaintiff Lynne Wright is proceeding pro se with this action against Defendant Specialized Loan 

Servicing, LLC. Notably, this is the third case Plaintiff has filed which raises the same claims against 

the same Defendant. See, Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC., Case No. 1:13-cv-00899 LJO 

JLT; Wright v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC., Case No. 1:14-cv-01587 LJO JLT. In all three cases, 

Plaintiff has asserted that Defendant has made false reports regarding a debt to three credit reporting 

agencies and has used unlawful methods to attempt to collect this debt. (Doc. 1) In this third case, just 

as in the previous two, Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support her claims. Thus, the Court 

dismissed the complaint with leave to amend on February 27, 2015. (Doc. 14.) The Court granted 

Plaintiff 21 days from the date of service, or until March 24, 2015, to file an amended complaint. To 

date, Plaintiff has failed to file her First Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s order.

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 

LYNNE L. WRIGHT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00287 - --- - JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:15-cv-00287-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 03/26/15 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

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 

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 within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure comply with the Court’s order, or in 

the alternative, to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 26, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00287-LJO-JLT Document 15 Filed 03/26/15 Page 2 of 2