Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01051-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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 August 22, 2016, the Court granted the petitions for approval of the minors’ compromises, 

and ordered the parties to “file a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice, and lodge a 

separate order, within ten days of the date of service.” (Doc. 255 at 2.) The stipulation was due no 

later than September 1, 2016. Nevertheless, the parties have not filed the stipulation or otherwise 

responded to the Court’s order.

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, including dismissal of 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 

TARA GARLICK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01051 - LJO - JLT

ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 

COURT’S ORDER

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 256 Filed 09/08/16 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

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) (imposing sanctions for 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 five days the parties SHALL show cause in writing why sanctions should 

not be imposed for their failure to comply with the Court’s order. Alternatively, within five days they 

may file the stipulation for dismissal of the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01051-LJO-JLT Document 256 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 2