Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00400/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00400-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GINO LOPEZ, Case No. 1:06-cv-0400 AWI TAG 

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

vs. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO 

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER 

COUNTY OF KERN, et al., (Doc. 27)

Defendants.

 /

BACKGROUND

On April 7, 2006, plaintiff Gino Lopez (“plaintiff”), through counsel, commenced the instant

civil rights action, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against defendants County of Kern, the Kern County Sheriff’s

Department, and various law enforcement personnel. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleged that his constitutional

and state rights were violated while he was in the Central Receiving Facility of the Kern County Jail.

(Docs. 1, 12). On January 11, 2007, the law firm representing plaintiff in this civil action moved to

withdraw as the attorneys of record. (Doc. 20). Following a February 12, 2007, hearing on the abovereferenced motion, the undersigned granted the law firm’s motion to withdraw, providing that the order

would not be effective until the law firm filed proof that it had served the order on plaintiff. (Doc. 23,

24). The requisite proof of service was filed on March 2, 2007. (Doc. 25). On March 27, 2007, this

Court issued an order, pursuant to a stipulation executed by plaintiff and the defendants’ counsel, setting

an April 9, 2007, status and scheduling conference to enable plaintiff to retain a new attorney to

represent him. (Doc. 27). The order also directed the parties to file status reports no later than April 6,

2007. (Doc. 27). Plaintiff neither filed a status report nor appeared at the April 9, 2007, status and

scheduling conference. (See docket report; Doc. 29). 

This Court’s Local Rule 11-110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with

these Local Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any

Case 1:06-cv-00400-AWI-TAG Document 30 Filed 04/13/07 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

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have inherent power to

control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where

appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986).

A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to obey a court order or local

rules, especiallywhen the court has given the party“abundant opportunityand incentive” to comply with

the order. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with

local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply

with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir.

1988) (dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep

court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal

for failure to comply with court order); Thompson, 782 F.2d at 832 (dismissal for failure to prepare for

pretrial conference despite grants of extensions of time); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). 

In the instant case, plaintiff failed comply with this Court’s order when he failed to submit a

status report or appear, with or without counsel, at the April 9, 2007, status and scheduling conference.

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS plaintiff, no later than April 30, 2007, to show cause in writing and

by written declaration under penalty of perjury, why sanctions, including dismissal of this action,

 should not be imposed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s order. 

Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely comply with this order will result in a

recommendation to dismiss this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00400-AWI-TAG Document 30 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2