Filed: Oct. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR HIS FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN JOINT STATEMENT AND FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Manuel Robert Lucero ("Plainitff") is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 21, 2018, the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 17-1.) Pursuant to the orde
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR HIS FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN JOINT STATEMENT AND FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Manuel Robert Lucero ("Plainitff") is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On November 21, 2018, the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 17-1.) Pursuant to the order..
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR HIS FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN JOINT STATEMENT AND FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE MANDATORY SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Manuel Robert Lucero ("Plainitff") is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 21, 2018, the order setting the mandatory scheduling conference issued in this action. (ECF No. 17-1.) Pursuant to the order, the parties were ordered to prepare a joint scheduling report and all parties were to attend the scheduling conference on October 15, 2019. (Id. at 2-3; ECF No. 38.) As Plaintiff is not represented by counsel his personal appearance was required at the October 15, 2019 scheduling conference. The order setting the scheduling conference also informed the parties that "[s]hould counsel or a party appearing pro se fail to appear at the Mandatory Scheduling Conference, or fail to comply with the directions as set forth above, an ex parte hearing may be held and contempt sanctions, including monetary sanctions, dismissal, default, or other appropriate judgment, may be imposed and/or ordered." (ECF No. 17-1 at 7 (emphasis in original).)
Defendants filed a scheduling report on October 8, 2019, indicating that despite their attempts to contact Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not respond and did not participate in the preparation of the scheduling report. (ECF No. 39.) Additionally, Plaintiff did not appear for the October 15, 2019 mandatory scheduling conference.
Local Rule 110 provides that "[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order why sanctions should not issue for his failure to comply with the November 21, 2018 order requiring him to participate in the preparation of the joint scheduling report and requiring his personal appearance at the mandatory scheduling conference. Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.