Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00723/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00723-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY DIBBERN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00723-CDB

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR 

FAILURE TO FILE JOINT REPORT

(ECF No. 3)

TWO DAY DEADLINE

On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 

1983 seeking damages for defendants’ alleged excessive use of force, denial of medical care, 

municipal liability, conspiracy to violate civil rights and related state law causes of action. (ECF 

No. 1.) On June 15, 2022, the Court entered an order setting a scheduling conference on October 

18, 2022, and requiring that the parties, among other things, file a “Joint Scheduling Report” at 

least “one (1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference.” (ECF No. 3 at p.2). Neither party 

requested a continuance of the scheduling conference set for October 18, 2022.

On October 11, 2022, defendants filed a scheduling report in which the City Defendants 

represented they “attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Plaintiffs to prepare a joint 

report; however, counsel for Plaintiff is currently in trial and was not available to provide 

Plaintiff’s portions prior to the close of business” on the date of the filing. (ECF No. 14 at p.1). 

The following day (October 12, 2022), the Court ordered Plaintiff by 5:00pm that day to comply 

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 16 Filed 10/13/22 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

with his obligation to confer with defendants and file a scheduling report. (ECF No. 15). To 

date, Plaintiff has failed to comply with that order, as well. 

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 

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

control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 

including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 

2000). 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within two (2) days of entry of 

this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why Plaintiff should not be sanctioned for 

failing to timely comply with his obligation to confer with defendants and submit a joint 

scheduling report and for failing to comply with the Court’s most recent order to submit a report 

in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2022 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00723-CDB Document 16 Filed 10/13/22 Page 2 of 2