Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05961-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

THOMAS D. PORTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

)

G. DAVIS, BADGE # 776; BAGBY, )

BADGE # 933; T. BROWN, BADGE )

# 711; ERIC MATLOCK; CITY OF )

BAKERSFIELD; and DOES 1 through )

20, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

CASE NO. 1:04cv5961 TAG

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO APPEAR AND

TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY

WITH THIS COURT’S ORDER

(Docs. 19 & 20)

APPEARANCE DATE: July 25, 2005

Time: 9:00 a.m.

DATE TO SUBMIT 

RETURN: July 21, 2005

On June 24, 2005, Defendants moved this Court for an order to dismiss this action as result

of Plaintiff’s abuse of the discovery process and failure to comply with this Court’s May 18, 2005

order. (Doc. 20). 

In violation of this Court’s May 18, 2005 order, Plaintiff has allegedly failed to provide

answers to Defendants’ interrogatories, failed to timely produce all documents responsive to

Defendants’ request for production, and failed to timely pay $1,500.00 in a sanction award to

Defendants. (Docs. 19 & 20).

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on July 13, 2004. (Doc. 1). On September 14, 2004,

Defendants answered the complaint. (Doc. 7). The non-expert discovery deadline was June 17,

2005, the expert discovery deadline is September 2, 2005, the pretrial conference is scheduled for 

January 6, 2006, and the trial is scheduled for February 27, 2006. (Doc. 11).

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 21 Filed 06/29/05 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

2

On January 27, 2005, Defendants served Plaintiff with discovery requests consisting of a

Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatories and a Request for Admissions. (Doc. 18). 

Discovery responses were not received by Defendants by the March 3, 2005 deadline. Defendants

submitted a “meet and confer” letter to Plaintiff on March 10, 2005, advising him that if discovery

responses were not received within 10 days, a motion to compel responses would be filed with the

Court. (Doc. 18). On March 15, 2005, at Plaintiff’s deposition, Plaintiff assured Defendants that

discovery responses were forthcoming. (Doc. 18). No responses to Defendants’ discovery requests

were received by Defendants; therefore, on April 14, 2005, Defendants filed a motion to compel

Plaintiff to submit answers to the interrogatories and file responses to the production of documents

requests. (Doc. 18). In addition, Defendants requested that the Court deem all requests for

admissions admitted and sanction Plaintiff for his failure to timely respond to the discovery requests. 

(Doc. 18). Defendants’ motion to compel discovery responses and for sanctions came on regularly

for hearing on May 16, 2005, at which time Plaintiff failed to appear or otherwise respond to

Defendants’ motion. 

On May 18, 2005, the Court ordered as follows: (1) granted Defendants’ motion to compel

Plaintiff to submit answers to the interrogatories and responses to the production of documents

requests, (2) deemed admitted Defendants’ requests for admissions, (3) granted Defendants’ sanction

request in the amount of $1,500.00, payable by Plaintiff on or before June 3, 2005, (4) ordered

Plaintiff to serve answers to Defendants’ interrogatories, without objections, on or before June 3,

2005, and (5) ordered Plaintiff to produce responsive documents to Defendants’ request for

production, without objections, and serve the responses on or before June 3, 2005. (Doc. 18). 

In motion to dismiss filed on June 24, 2005, Defendants contend that, to date, they have

received no responses to their discovery requests or the Court’s May 18, 2005 order, nor have they

received payment of the Court ordered monetary sanction. (Doc. 20). 

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides that “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 inherent

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

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 21 Filed 06/29/05 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

3

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 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, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

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, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an

order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

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

lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff is ORDERED to APPEAR and SHOW CAUSE on July 25, 2005, at 9:00

a.m. before the Honorable Theresa A. Goldner, United States Magistrate Judge, in the

United States District Court Courtroom at 1300 18th Street, Bakersfield, CA, 93301,

why the instant action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with

this Court’s May 18, 2005 order. 

2. If Plaintiff has any reasons why this action should not be dismissed, they shall be

submitted by sworn declaration of facts on or before July 21, 2005, to which a

supporting memorandum of law may be appended.

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to comply with and/or respond to this order shall result

in a dismissal of this case pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05961-TAG Document 21 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 3