(PC) Martinez v. Lawhorn

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RICARDO MARTINEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01602-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDERS D. LAWHORN, et al., 14-DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendants.

18 On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (Doc. 37.) The motion was accompanied by a Rand1 notice, advising Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 37-4.)

22 Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion was to be filed “not more than twenty-one (21) days after the date of service of the motion.” Plaintiff has failed to file either an opposition or a statement of non-opposition and the time to do so has now passed.2 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

2 Plaintiff filed a “Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery” on October 13, 2023. (Doc. 38.) However, filing the motion does not relieve Plaintiff of his obligations related to the motion for summary judgment.

1 The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, | “[flailure 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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.”

4 | Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets” and, in exercising || that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., | City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a | party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., | Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with a | court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. | 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, } 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing, within 14 days of || the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to comply | with the Court’s orders. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file his opposition or || statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Failure to comply with this | order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to obey court | orders.

18 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ November 6, 2023 | ) Ww Vv ~~ 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE