Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01484-48/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DURBIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BONILLA, et al.,

Defendants.

1:11-cv-01484-AWI-JLT (PC) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

(Doc. 156)

10 DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiffs are state prisoners who were confined in the Security Housing Unit (“SHU”) at 

the California Correctional Institution (“CCI”) in Tehachapi. (Doc. 19 at 2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel 

filed a motion to withdraw as attorney of record for Plaintiffs Joaquin Coronado and Aaron 

Prange. (Doc. 155.) However, he did not submit the last known address for either Coronado or 

Prange. Thus, on January 18, 2017, Plaintiffs’ counsel was ordered to submit the last known

addresses for them within 10 days. (Doc. 156.) The deadline has lapsed without the information 

being filed. 

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide, “[f]ailure 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 

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 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 2

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 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 comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); 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).

Therefore, within 10 days, the Court ORDERS counsel for Plaintiffs’ counsel to show 

cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Alternatively, counsel may provide the information 

previously ordered within the same time period.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-01484-DAD-JLT Document 158 Filed 02/06/17 Page 2 of 2