1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEFFREY DIBBERN, Case No.: 1:22-cv-00723-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO RETURN LODGED FILINGS 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, et al., SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 15 Defendants. ORDER SETTING SHOW CAUSE 16 HEARING

17 18 Relevant Background 19 On September 24, 2025, the parties convened before Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. 20 Delaney for a settlement conference. (Doc. 154). The case was settled and the parties agreed to 21 the terms of the settlement agreement as recited on the record, subject to approval by the 22 Bakersfield City Council. Id.; see (Doc. 157, “Transcript of Settlement Conference”). Counsel 23 for Defendants thereafter reported to the Court that the City Council approved the settlement. 24 The Court ordered the parties to file dispositional documents within 30 days (e.g., no later than 25 October 24, 2025). 26 The parties have not filed dispositional documents and the deadline to do so has passed. 27 On November 6, 2025, the undersigned’s courtroom deputy emailed all counsel to report that Plaintiff Jeffrey Dibbern visited the Bakersfield courthouse seeking information about this 1 action and expressed an interest in representing himself. Because Mr. Dibbern is represented in 2 this action, the Court requested Plaintiff’s counsel to instruct Mr. Dibbern that the Court is unable 3 to accept his filings or provide him with advice about the case. 4 The following day, staff with the Freno office of the Clerk of the Court brought to the 5 undersigned’s attention that on or about November 7, 2025, Mr. Dibbern lodged for filing a 6 pleading titled “Motion Request” in which it appears Mr. Dibbern seeks various forms of relief, 7 including that the Court “appoint” him as “pro se” counsel and “release” noticed counsel DeWitt 8 M. Lacy and Julia N. Quesada. 9 Governing Legal Standard 10 When a party is represented by counsel, he may not appear, file motions, or otherwise act 11 on his own behalf without leave of the court. See United States v. Brayshaw, No. 2:14-mc- 12 00088-MCE-KJN,

, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018) (noting that under Fed. R. 13 Civ. P. 11, a party “cannot both be represented and file her own motions”). If a party represented 14 by counsel wishes to proceed on a pro se basis, counsel must either notice a motion to withdraw 15 consistent with Local Rule 182(d) or seek to substitute another attorney with the client’s consent 16 (see Local Rule 182(g)). 17 Separately, Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 18 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of 19 the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the 20 inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its 21 docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 22 dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County,

, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). A 23 court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, 24 or comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) 25 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend a complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal 26 Service,

(9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); 27 Henderson v. Duncan,

, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and 1 Discussion 2 Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. Lacy and Ms. Quesada have neither moved for leave to withdraw 3 | nor filed an application for substitution of attorney. Accordingly, because Mr. Lacy and Ms. 4 | Quesada remain counsel of record, Mr. Dibbern is not authorized to make filings in this case. 5 | Therefore, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to return the filing Mr. Dibbern lodged on 6 | November 7, 2025, to Plaintiff’s counsel via U.S. postal mail. 7 Further, because the parties have failed to comply with a Court order and this Court’s 8 | Local Rules governing dispositional documents (see Local Rule 160) and neither sought leave for 9 | an extension of the deadline to file dispositional documents or otherwise explained their 10 || delinquency, the Court will order the parties to show cause in writing and appear for hearing why 11 | sanctions should not be imposed. 12 Conclusion and Order 13 For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to return the filing 14 | Mr. Dibbern lodged on November 7, 2025, to Plaintiff’s counsel via U.S. postal mail. 15 And it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall show cause in writing no later than 16 | November 24, 2025, why sanctions should not be imposed for counsels’ failure to comply with a 17 | Court order and Local Rule 160. 18 And it is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the undersigned for 19 | hearing on the Court’s order to show cause on November 25, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. Counsel shall 20 | email the undersigned’s courtroom deputy at least 24 hours in advance of the hearing for Zoom 21 || connection information. 22 Any failure by the parties to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of 23 || sanctions, through and including dismissal of the action. 24 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 29 Dated: _ November 19, 2025 | Ww VV KD 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28