United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2020

Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center

Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided October 16, 2020
Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center

Trial Court Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AL PRINGLE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00468-BAM 8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 9 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT WALMART DISTRIBUTION CENTER, ORDER et al., 11 (Doc. No. 38) Defendants.

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 14 On September 4, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Woosik Isaac Maing to withdraw as counsel of record for Plaintiff Al Pringle (“Plaintiff”), and substituted Plaintiff in propria persona. (Doc. No. 37.) By separate order, the Court set a telephonic status conference for October 15, 2020, to address whether Plaintiff had secured new counsel or intended to represent himself in propria persona. (Doc. No. 38.) A copy of the Court’s order setting the conference was served on Plaintiff at his last known address.

20 On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff failed to appear at the telephonic status conference.

21 Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[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 . . .

23 within the inherent power of the Court.” L.R. 110. 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).

26 Accordingly, Plaintiff Al Pringle is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed against him for his failure to obey a court order and failure to appear at the October 15, 2020 telephonic status conference. In any response to this Order, Plaintiff shall explain how he intends to proceed in this case.

3 Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of this action for failure to comply with court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: October 15, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.