Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01242/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01242-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 June 22, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to prepare and file a Joint Scheduling 

Conference Statement for a conference to be held on July 23, 2015. (Doc. 41) However, Defendant 

Richard Moore failed to participate in the preparation of the statement, and failed to appear at the 

Scheduling Conference. 

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 for a party’s failure 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 a court order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 

VICTOR JONES,

 Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD MOORE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01242 - AWI-JLT 

ORDER TO DEFENDANT RICHARD MOORE TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD 

NOT BE IMPOSED FOR HIS FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:11-cv-01242-JLT Document 45 Filed 07/23/15 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

128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing sanction against the plaintiff 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, within fourteen days of the date of service of this Order, Defendant Richard 

Moore is ORDERED to show cause in writing why sanctions—including striking his Answer and 

entering default—should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Court’s order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01242-JLT Document 45 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 2