Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01218/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01218-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

ARMANDO OSEGUEDA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STANISLAUS COUNTY PUBLIC 

SAFETY CENTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01218-LJO-BAM

ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO PERSONALLY APPEAR

ON FEBRUARY 12, 2020 TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT 

ORDERS

Plaintiffs Armando Osegueda and Robert Palomino (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action on 

August 16, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 29, 2019, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation 

to stay this matter pending resolution of the state criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs. (Doc. 

No. 50.) The Court further directed Plaintiffs to file a written status report every ninety (90) days 

notifying the Court of the status of the criminal matter. (Id.) 

On December 27, 2019, after no status reports had been filed, the Court issued an order to 

show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with an order of the Court. 

(Doc. No. 53.) Plaintiffs were required to file either a written response or the required status 

report by January 10, 2020. (Id.) To date, Plaintiffs have not filed a written response or status 

report as required by the Court’s December 27, 2019 order. 

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 

or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 

Case 1:16-cv-01218-JLT-BAM Document 56 Filed 01/29/20 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

sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to 

control its docket and may impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. 

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

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ counsel Amber Hope Gordon is HEREBY ORDERED to 

personally appear before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe at the United 

States Courthouse, 2500 Tulare St., Fresno, California, Courtroom 8, on Wednesday, February 

12, 2020, at 9:00 AM to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s orders dated January 29, 2019, and December 

27, 2019. Counsel, however, may comply with this order by filing the status report by February 

10, 2020.

Failure to file the status report by February 10, 2020 or to personally appear before 

the Court on February 12, 2020, will result in the recommendation that this action be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with the Court’s orders. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01218-JLT-BAM Document 56 Filed 01/29/20 Page 2 of 2