Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01589/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01589-3/pdf.json

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

On March 6, 2015, Shawn Khorrami filed a “Designation of Counsel for Service” on behalf of 

Plaintiff. (Doc. 21.) On March 10, 2015, the Court issued an order noting that the document appeared 

to be intended as a substitution of attorney. (Doc. 22.) Because a designation of counsel is not the 

appropriate avenue to substitute counsel, the Court ordered Plaintiff to “file a Substitution of Attorney 

(containing the appropriate signatures) and Proposed Order within fourteen (14) days.” (Id.) To date, 

Plaintiff has not complied with 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 

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 impose sanctions based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action or 

BRENNAN COBERT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01589 - JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-01589-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/13/15 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

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) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an order); Malone 

v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanctions for failure to comply 

with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (imposing sanctions 

for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s counsel—including Hermez Moreno, Brian Bush, and Shawn Khorrami

— are ORDERED to show cause in writing within seven days why sanctions should not be imposed 

for failure comply the Court’s Order or, in the alternative, to file a Substitution of Attorney.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01589-JLT Document 23 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2