Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01294/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01294-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM COLBERT, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MERCED, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01294-JLT-HBK

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

(Doc. Nos. 34, 35)

This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff, proceeding 

with counsel, initiated this action by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on 

September 13, 2019 against City of Merced, BP America Inc.1, and police officers of the Merced 

Police Department in their individual and official capacities alleging excessive force during 

arrest, supervisory and municipal liability, violation of the Bane Act, assault and battery, 

negligence, false imprisonment/illegal detention, false arrest, negligent infliction of emotional 

distress, stemming from a March 12, 2018 incident at a gas station wherein the store clerk called 

9-1-1. (See generally Doc. No. 1). On November 18, 2019, noting that Plaintiff had not filed 

proof of service of the Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service or a status 

1 Notably, the previously assigned magistrate judge granted the parties’ stipulated motion granting 

Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint to substitute Defendant BP America, Inc. for Spa 

Petroleum, Inc. five days after the stay is lifted in this case. (Doc. No. 13)

Case 1:19-cv-01294-LHR-HBK Document 36 Filed 11/23/22 Page 1 of 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

2

report indicating whether Plaintiff intended to prosecute the action. (Doc. No. 5). Plaintiff filed a 

status report stating he expected proof of service by January 15, 2020 and would file the executed 

summons by January 17, 2020. (Doc. No. 6). 

Approximately one month later, the parties filed a stipulated motion to stay this action 

pending Plaintiff’s criminal trial. (Doc. No. 8). The Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion 

to stay but directed Plaintiff to provide status reports with updates on the underlying criminal case 

every ninety days to Defendants and to the Court. (Doc. No. 9). Despite the order, the Court has 

ordered Plaintiff’s counsel to provide the status updates no less than six times with the most 

recent orders entered on November 7 and November 2022.

2

(Doc. Nos. 10, 16, 18, 28, 34, 35).

Plaintiff has not responded to either the Court’s November 7, 2022 or November 21, 2022 Orders.

The Court possesses inherent authority to impose sanctions to manage its own affairs so as 

to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 

32, 43 (1991). The Court’s inherent power is that which is necessary to the exercise of all others, 

including to protect the due and orderly administration of justice and maintain the authority and 

dignity of the Court. Roadway Exp., Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 764 (1980). Further, Rule 1 

places an affirmative duty on both the court and counsel to ensure the “just, speedy, and 

inexpensive” determinations of federal cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 

Based on the foregoing procedural history, the Court directs Plaintiff to show good cause 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or comply with the Court’s orders 

under Rule 41 and Local Rule 110. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to 

involuntarily dismiss an action when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with 

other Rules or with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. 

Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council 

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister 

circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least 

under certain circumstances.”); M.J.V. v. City of Avenal, Case No. 1:18-cv-00863-DAD-EPG 

2 The current firm representing Plaintiff was substituted on February 1, 2022. (Doc. No. 28).

Case 1:19-cv-01294-LHR-HBK Document 36 Filed 11/23/22 Page 2 of 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

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019), 2019 WL 4670860 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019)(findings and 

recommendations to dismiss action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s counsel failure to 

prosecute). Local Rule 110 similarly permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to 

comply with the court’s Rules or any order of court. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff shall show good cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 

and Local Rule 110 within fourteen (14) days from the date on this order.

2. Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond and/or show good cause will result in the 

recommendation to the district court that this case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

Dated: November 23, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01294-LHR-HBK Document 36 Filed 11/23/22 Page 3 of 3