Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05714/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05714-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA HOFFMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

KENT TONNEMACHER, M.D.; )

UNKNOWN PHYSICIANS; )

MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV F 04-5714 AWI DLB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD

NOT BE IMPOSED DUE TO

FAILURE TO OBEY COURT

ORDERS

On September 20, 2007, based on submissions from the parties, this Court discharged an

order to show cause regarding the parties’s failure to obey an August 10, 2007, order. Both the

August 10 and September 20 orders required the parties to either create and submit a new

scheduling order or to contact the Magistrate Judge for establishing a new scheduling order. The

September 20, 2007, order required the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order or contact

the Magistrate Judge on or by September 28, 2007. The September 28, 2007, deadline has now

passed, no proposed scheduling order has been submitted, and once again the Magistrate Judge

has not been contacted. The Court warned that the failure to obey the September 20, 2007, order

would be sanctionable. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), in relevant part, provides, “For failure of the 

plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a defendant may move

for dismissal of an action or any claim against the defendant.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b). Although

Case 1:04-cv-05714-AWI-DLB Document 188 Filed 10/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

daw 2

the language indicates that Rule 41(b) is applicable upon motion by the defendant, “courts may

dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least in some circumstances.” Hells Canyon

Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing

Olsen v. Maples, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003)). Local Rule 11-110 provides that “a

failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Local Rules or 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.” “District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and in the

exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal of a

case.’” Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); 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. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54

(9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with Local Rule); In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447, 1456

(9th cir. 1994) (dismissal for lack of prosecution); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (dismissal for

failure to comply with court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986)

(dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with Local Rules). In determining

whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order, the court

must consider several factors, including: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

(4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

drastic alternatives. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002); Bautista, 216

F.3d at 841; In re Eisen, 31 F.3d at 1451; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Henderson, 779 F.2d at

1424; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831. 

In light of the disobedience of two court orders, the parties will be required to show cause

why sanctions should not be imposed upon them, including the dismissal of this action.

Case 1:04-cv-05714-AWI-DLB Document 188 Filed 10/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

daw 3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties are to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed upon them

for failure to obey the September 20, 2007, order, on or by 1:30 p.m. on October 9, 2007;

a. In addition to other considerations that the parties may wish the Court to consider,

the parties are to address the five considerations identified above for dismissal;

2. The parties may submit responding briefs to the October 9, 2007, filings on or by 4:30

p.m. on October 15, 2007; and

3. The parties are warned that the failure to obey this order will result in the imposition of

sanctions, up to and including dismissal, without further notice.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05714-AWI-DLB Document 188 Filed 10/02/07 Page 3 of 3