Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01299-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JABLONSKY, M.D., )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

SIERRA KINGS HEALTH CARE )

DISTRICT, et al., )

)

)

 )

Defendants. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 06-cv-1299 AWI GSA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED ON PLAINTIFF

OR HIS ATTORNEY FOR FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S SCHEDULING

ORDERS AND FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE

SCHEDULING CONFERENCES

(Docket Entries 4, 38, 41, 44)

ORDER SETTING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE HEARING AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO APPEAR 

IN PERSON AT THE HEARING

ORDER RESETTING THE SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE, REQUIRING THE FILING OF

A JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT AT LEAST

ONE WEEK BEFORE THE SCHEDULING

CONFERENCE, AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN

PERSON AT THE CONFERENCE

Order to Show Cause Hearing:

11/30/2007 at 9:30 a.m. - GSA, Courtroom 10 

Scheduling Conference:

11/30/2007 at 9:30 a.m. - GSA, Courtroom 10 

In September 2007, Plaintiff Robert Jablonsky, M.D. (“Plaintiff”), represented by attorney

William A. Romaine (“Mr. Romaine”), filed a civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which he

amended per Court order on March 5, 2007, alleging that the individuals who comprised the Board

of Governors of the Sierra Kings Health Care District deprived him of his constitutional rights when

they determined that he no longer was fit to be a staff member of, and removed him from, the Sierra

Kings District Hospital. (Docs. 1, 18, 19). 

Case 1:06-cv-01299-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 10/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

On September 19, 2006, this Court issued, inter alia, an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference, which required the parties to confer and prepare, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(f), a joint scheduling report, which they were directed to file one week before the

Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 4). The Scheduling Conference ultimately was reset for August 10,

2007. (Doc. 18; see Entries 23, 29, 37, 38). The resetting of the initial Scheduling Conference had

no impact on the requirement that the parties submit a joint scheduling report one week before the

Scheduling Conference. (See Entry 23). 

On May 30, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Scheduling Report, upon which the Magistrate

Judge relied at the August 10, 2007 Scheduling Conference. (Doc. 28; see Entry 41). Mr. Romaine

failed to appear, either personally or telephonically, at the August 10, 2007 proceedings and the

Court was unable to conduct a meaningful conference in his absence. (See Entry 41). The

Magistrate Judge, therefore, ordered the parties to filed an updated joint scheduling report no later

than August 24, 2007, set a further Scheduling Conference for September 5, 2007 and ordered

counsel for the parties to appear at the September 5, 2007 proceedings. (See Entry 41). 

On August 24, 2007, Defendants’ counsel filed an Amended Scheduling Report, in which he

reported that although he had submitted the proposed amended report to Mr. Romaine, the latter had

not signed or responded to the proposed “joint” report. (Doc. 43, p. 7). The Magistrate Judge

proceeded with the September 5, 2007 Scheduling Conference, and again, Mr. Romaine failed to

appear, either in person or telephonically at the Scheduling Conference. (See Entry 44). As reflected

in the Court’s minutes of the September 5, 2007 proceedings: “This is the second time that Plaintiff’s

attorney has failed to appear at the Scheduling Conference in this case. “ (See Entry 44). 

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure 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

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of

Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice,

Case 1:06-cv-01299-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local rules, especially when the court has given the

party “abundant opportunity and incentive” to comply with the order. See Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal

without prejudice for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

for failure to comply with court order); Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles,

782 F.2d at 832 (dismissal for failure to prepare for pretrial conference despite grants of extensions

of time); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of

prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In light of Mr. Romaine’s continued failure to comply with this Court’s orders regarding his

participation in the preparation and filing of a joint scheduling report, and his attendance at the

mandatory Scheduling Conferences, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff, Robert Jablonsky, M.D., and his attorney, William Anthony Romaine are

ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before November 9, 2007, why sanctions, including

dismissal of this action, should not be imposed due to their failure to comply with this Court’s

scheduling orders and minute orders , specifically, why sanctions should not be imposed on either or

both of them for Mr. Romaine’s failure to participate in the preparation of a joint scheduling report

and his failure to appear at the Scheduling Conferences in this action; 

2. It is FURTHER ORDERED that an Order to Show Cause Hearing is set for November 30,

2007, at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Gary S. Austin, United States Magistrate Judge, in

Courtroom 10 of the United States District Court at 2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, California, and that

Mr. Romaine SHALL APPEAR PERSONALLY at the Order to Show Cause Hearing and explain

why sanctions should not be imposed, and this action should not be dismissed, pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110, for failure to comply with the Court’s orders (Doc. 4, Entries 23, 37, 38, 41).

Case 1:06-cv-01299-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 10/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3. The Scheduling Conference is RESET to November 30, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., immediately

following the conclusion of the Order to Show Cause hearing, before Judge Austin. Mr. Romaine is

ORDERED to CONFER WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL to prepare and file a joint scheduling report

at least one week before the date of the Scheduling Conference. Mr. Romaine is further ORDERED

TO APPEAR IN PERSON at the Scheduling Conference.

PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL ARE WARNED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS THIS

ACTION.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01299-AWI-GSA Document 46 Filed 10/24/07 Page 4 of 4