Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00472/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00472-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fernando Gastelum
Plaintiff
Hie River Park LLC
Defendant
Holiday Inn Express Fresno Riverpark
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FERNANDO GASTELUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

HIE RIVER PARK LLC dba Holiday Inn 

Express Fresno Riverpark,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:23-cv-00472-JLT-SKO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 

RECOMMENDED FOR DISMISSAL

AND VACATING SCHEDULING 

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 21)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint in this action on 

March 28, 2023. (Docs. 1, 2, 3, & 4.)

On September 10, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to file a status report 

indicating whether they contend to continue to prosecute this case by no later than December 10, 

2024. (Doc. 21.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a status report or requested an extension of time 

within which to do so.

The Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 

corresponding with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 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 

Case 1:23-cv-00472-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 12/11/24 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

Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure 

to prosecute an action or to obey a court order. See, e.g., 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).

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause, within twenty-one (21) days of the 

date of service of this Order, why a recommendation should not issue for this action to be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure comply with the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute his

case. Alternatively, within that same period, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal. The 

Court further CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if he fails to act within twenty-one (21) days of the date of 

service of this order, the Court will recommend to the presiding district court judge that this action 

be dismissed, in its entirety.

In view of the foregoing, the Scheduling Conference set for December 17, 2024, is 

VACATED, to be reset, if appropriate, on a later date.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at his address listed 

on the docket for this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 11, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00472-JLT-SKO Document 22 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2