Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00024-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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 January 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant action. (Doc. 1) The next day, the Court issued

five summonses (Doc. 5) and issued its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference to occur on 

April 23, 2014. (Doc. 6) In its order setting the mandatory scheduling conference, the Court advised 

counsel:

The Court is unable to conduct a scheduling conference until defendants have been 

served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff(s) shall diligently 

pursue service of summons and complaint and dismiss those defendants against whom 

plaintiff(s) will not pursue claims. Plaintiff(s) shall promptly file proofs of service of 

the summons and complaint so the Court has a record of service. Counsel are referred 

to F.R.Civ.P., Rule 4 regarding the requirement of timely service of the complaint. 

Failure to timely serve summons and complaint may result in the imposition of 

sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.

(Doc. 6 at 1-2, emphasis added) Despite this, Plaintiff failed to make any effort to file proof of service 

of the summons and complaint and no defendant had appeared. 

MICHAEL G. ALLFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT BARTON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00024 AWI JLT 

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

THE MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE, FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH FED. R. CIV P. 4 AND FAILURE 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDERS

Case 1:14-cv-00024-AWI-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 Page 1 of 3
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

On April 8, 2014, the Court issued an order continuing the scheduling conference to allow time 

for service of process and reminded Plaintiff of his obligation to serve the defendants according to the 

time period set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. (Doc. 7) The Court re-set the scheduling conference to June 

30, 2014 and admonished him that “Plaintiff is reminded of his service obligations under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4. Failure to comply may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of 

unserved defendants.” (Doc. 7 at 2, emphasis in the original) Once again, however, Plaintiff has 

failed to file proof of service of the summons and complaint and no defendant has appeared.

The Court’s 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 dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to 

prosecute an action or 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) (dismissal for failure to comply with an 

order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

Moreover, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) provides, “If a defendant is not served within 120 days after 

the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss 

the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 

time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service 

for an appropriate period.” As noted above, despite the passage of more than six months since the 

filing of this action, Plaintiff has not served the summons and complaint and has not provided proof of 

service. Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. Within 14 days, Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing why this matter should not be 

dismissed for failure to comply with the Court’s orders, failure to prosecute the action and failure to 

serve the summons and complaint in a timely fashion.

Case 1:14-cv-00024-AWI-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 Page 2 of 3
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. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to comply with this order SHALL result in a 

recommendation that the matter be dismissed;

3. The scheduling conference is continued to August 29, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00024-AWI-JLT Document 8 Filed 06/18/14 Page 3 of 3