Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00608/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00608-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN LENAHAN, PETER AUBRY, )

JR., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs. )

)

SANTA ROSA RANCHERIA TACHI )

TRIBE dba PALACE INDIAN )

GAMING CENTER, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:05-cv-00608-AWI-SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (1) WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION, AND

(2) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT

BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO

REGISTER FOR CM/ECF PURSUANT

TO LOCAL RULES 11-110 AND

5-133(d)(3)

Date: 10/7/05

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: Four

Judge: Hon. Sandra M. Snyder,

U.S. Magistrate Judge

This matter came on regularly for a Mandatory Scheduling

Conference on August 23, 2005 at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4

before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate

Judge, pursuant to the court’s Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference, filed May 6, 2005 (doc. 3), the same date plaintiffs,

through counsel, filed their complaint (doc. 1). Plaintiffs,

through counsel, DID NOT appear or otherwise contact the court. It

is unknown to the court if defendant has been served as an

appearance has not yet been made.

Case 1:05-cv-00608-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 08/25/05 Page 1 of 4
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

Further, a Notice of Electronic Filing Requirement (doc. 4),

filed May 10, 2005, was issued to plaintiffs’ counsel, William B.

Palmer, for his failure to register for the court’s Case

Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system as required by

this Court’s standard Scheduling Conference Order, and,

specifically, No. 15 thereof, as follows:

15. Compliance with Electronic Filing Requirement:

On January 3, 2005, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California became an electronic case

management/filing district (CM/ECF). Unless excused by the Court,

or by Local Rule, attorneys shall file all documents electronically

as of January 3, 2005 in all actions pending before the court.

While Pro Se Litigants are exempt from this requirement, the court

will scan in all documents filed by pro se litigants, and the

official court record in all cases will be electronic. Attorneys

are required to file electronically in pro se cases. More

information regarding the Court’s implementation of CM/ECF can be

found on the court’s web site at www.caed.uscourts.gov, including

the Court’s Amended Local Rules effective January 3, 2005, the

Court’s CM/ECF Final Procedures, and the Court’s CM/ECF User’s

Manual.

While the Clerk's Office will not refuse to file a

proffered paper document, the Clerk's Office will scan it and, if

improperly filed, notify the Court that the document was filed in

an improper format. An order to show cause (OSC) may be issued in

appropriate cases regarding an attorney's disregard for the

requirement to utilize electronic filing, or other violations of

these electronic filing procedures. See L.R. 11-110 & 5-133(d)(3).

Case 1:05-cv-00608-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 08/25/05 Page 2 of 4
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

If counsel has not already done so, counsel must register

for CM/ECF as soon as possible. On-line registration is available

at www.caed.uscourts.gov. Once registered, counsel will receive a

login and password in approximately one (1) week. Counsel must be

registered to file documents on-line. See L.R. 5-135(g). Counsel

are responsible for knowing the rules governing electronic filing

in the Eastern District. Please review the Court’s Local Rules

effective January 3, 2005, available on the Court’s web site.

Therefore, a review of the instant action indicates that

plaintiffs, through counsel, have not diligently prosecuted this

case. The court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss

an action based on plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute diligently. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ.

Proc. Before Trial ¶ 16:431 (1997). Unreasonable delay by

plaintiffs is sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence

of actual prejudice to defendants (Moore v. Telfon Communications

Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978)) since a presumption of

injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity

Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27,

29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiffs then have the burden of showing

justification for the delay and, in the absence of such showing,

the case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. Nealey v.

Transportation Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That this matter be set for hearing on October 7, 2005 at

9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 4 before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder,

United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration of dismissal for

plaintiffs’ lack of prosecution.

Case 1:05-cv-00608-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 08/25/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. If plaintiffs, through counsel, have any reasons why this

action should not be dismissed, they shall be submitted by sworn

declaration of facts on or before September 19, 2005, to which a

supporting memorandum of law may be appended, to include:

(A) an explanation of the lack of activity in this case;

and,

(B) shall list each specific step plaintiffs, through

counsel, plan to take to prepare this case for trial.

3. Additionally, if plaintiffs, through counsel, have any

reasons why they should not be sanctioned for failure to register

for CM/ECF, they shall also be submitted by sworn declaration of

facts on or before September 19, 2005.

Plaintiffs, through counsel, are advised that failure to

comply with and/or respond to this Order will result in Findings

and a Recommendation to the District Court that this action be

dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00608-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 08/25/05 Page 4 of 4