Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01156/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01156-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

TO PLAINTIFF NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ:

Plaintiff Natividad Gutierrez is proceeding pro se in this action. Plaintiff failed to appear at the 

Status Conference on November 29, 2016. Previously, on November 15, 2016, Plaintiff was advised

by mail that a status conference would be held on November 29, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., and that he was 

required to appear in person. (Doc. 37). On November 29, 2016, counsel for Defendants appeared at 

the status conference by telephone, however, Plaintiff failed to appear or otherwise contact the Court.

Without Plaintiff’s appearance, the status conference could not proceed. Further, at the hearing, 

Defendants’ counsel informed the Court that there has been no contact with Plaintiff since he became 

pro per. 

Therefore, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why he has failed to participate in these proceedings

and obey the orders of this Court and why sanctions, up to an including terminating sanctions, should 

not be imposed for his failure to appear at the status conference. Plaintiff is further put on notice that 

failure to timely respond, as explained in this order, may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including dismissal of this action.

NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

HONG HWAH KO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01156-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO PLAINTIFF 

NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ WHY SANCTIONS 

SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED INCLUDING 

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

HEARING: Tuesday, December 20, 2016, at 

 9:00 AM in Courtroom 8 (BAM)

 Personal Appearance Required

Case 1:15-cv-01156-BAM Document 40 Filed 11/29/16 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

DISCUSSION

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.” District courts have the 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 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 or failure to obey a 

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

determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution or failure to obey a court order, the 

court must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) 

the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy 

favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. 

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 

F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 

1. Plaintiff Natividad Gutierrez is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this 

Court should not impose sanctions, including dismissal of this action, for his failure to appear at the 

status conference and otherwise comply with this Court’s orders Plaintiff shall respond to this Order 

to Show Cause, in writing, no later than December 9, 2016;

2. Plaintiff’s written statement SHALL identify his current physical address, telephone 

number, and email address, if any. He also shall advise the Court whether he intends to continue to 

prosecute this action; 

Case 1:15-cv-01156-BAM Document 40 Filed 11/29/16 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

3. The Court also SETS a Show Cause Hearing for December 20, 2016 at 9:00 AM in 

Courtroom 8 (BAM) before United States Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe; 

4. Plaintiff SHALL appear at the show cause hearing in person;

5. Defendants’ counsel may appear at the show cause hearing by telephone by contacting 

chambers at (559) 499-5789 prior to the conference;

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve this Order to Show Cause on Plaintiff by 

mail; and

7. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order or failure to appear at the December 20, 

2016 hearing will result in the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01156-BAM Document 40 Filed 11/29/16 Page 3 of 3