Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00027-9/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

On January 4, 2016, the Court signed the parties’ proposed consent decree. (Doc. 29) The 

consent decree resolved all matters except for “the amount of Plaintiff’s claims for damages or the 

amount of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs in this Action.” (Id. at 4) The Court ordered the 

parties to notify the Court, no later than January 18, 2016, if they still desired to participate in the 

settlement conference set on February 4, 2016. (Id. at 6) This did not occur. Accordingly, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file any motion related to these issues no later than March 18, 2016. (Doc. 30) To 

date, Plaintiff has not done so, and has not taken any further action to prosecute the matter.

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 

DEBRA ANGLIN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WEST SIDE HEALTH CARD DISTRICT and 

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 

GROUP, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-0027 -JLT

ORDER TO PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER 

Case 1:15-cv-00027-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/13/16 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

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 prosecute and comply with 

an order); 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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within 14 days of the date of service of 

this Order why the action should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute and failure comply with 

the Court’s order or, within the same time period, to file a motion for damages . 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00027-JLT Document 31 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2