Strojnik v. Griffin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PETER STROJNIK, SR., Case No. 1:18-cv-01619-LJO-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ANITA GRIFFIN, et al., ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 21) 16 TEN DAY DEADLINE 18 Peter Strojnik, Sr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se in this action, filed a complaint against Anita Griffin and Greg Griffin (collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and California law. (ECF No. 1.) On June 25, 2019, Defendants’ answer was stricken as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and default was entered. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) Plaintiff was ordered to file a motion for default judgment within sixty days of June 25, 2019. (Id.) More than sixty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed a motion for default judgment or otherwise responded to the June 25, 2019 order.

25 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).

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days from the date of | entry of this order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING why this action should not be | dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is advised | that failure to file a response to this order will result in the recommendation that this action be | dismissed.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF a Se | Dated: _August 29, 2019 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE