(HC) Estell v. Trate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES B. ESTELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-01022-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER REQURING RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO FILE CONSENT OR WARDEN, USP-ATWATER, REASSIGNMENT FORM 15 Respondent. ECF No. 6, 11 16 THREE-DAY DEADLINE On August 15, 2022, Petitioner Charles B. Estell filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 2241. (ECF No. 1). On August 29, 2022, the Court issued an Order directing the parties to complete and file a “Consent / Decline of Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction” form not later than October 3, 2022. (ECF No. 6). To date, Respondent has not filed the required form and it is more than 30 days past due. Instead, on October 27, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10).

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).

1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within three (3) days of entry | of this order, Respondent shall show cause in writing why Respondent should not be sanctioned | for failing to timely comply with his obligation to complete and return the Consent / Decline of | Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction form, including striking Respondent’s pending motion to dismiss.

5 | (ECF No. 10).

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Order to Show Cause incorrectly naming Plaintiff as | the party to show cause (ECF No. 11) is vacated.

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 4, 2022 | Word 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE