(PC) Coffman v. Borges

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT COFFMAN, Case No. 1:23-cv-00012-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS ACTION AND TO BORGES, ET AL, COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDERS; ORDER CONTINUING THE MANDATORY 15 Defendants.

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

FIVE-DAY DEADLINE 18 Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 3, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) That same day, the Clerk of Court issued summonses and the Court entered an Order setting a mandatory scheduling conference. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The Order directed Plaintiff to “diligently pursue service of summons and complaint” and “promptly file proofs of service.” The Order further advised Plaintiff that failure to diligently prosecute this action “may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the dismissal of unserved defendants.” To date, Plaintiff has not filed proofs of service, and the defendants have not appeared in the action.

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 In addition, Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “If a defendant || is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - on motion or on its own after || notice to the plaintiff - must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order || that service be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). Absent a showing of good || cause, failure to comply with Rule 4(m) may result in dismissal of this action.

8 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of entry of g || this order, Plaintiff SHALL show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the failure to || prosecute this action and to serve the summons and complaint in a timely manner. Alternatively, 1] || the plaintiff may file proofs of service demonstrating the summons and complaint has been || Served.

13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the scheduling conference previously set for March 29, 2023, is CONTINUED to May 17, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

15 Plaintiff is advised that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause may result in dismissal of this action.

17 || IT IS SO ORDERED.

18|| Dated: _ March 17, 2023 | hwrnrD Pr 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE