Steven Whitfield v. Sierra Clinica Vista, et al.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STEVEN WHITFIELD, Case No. 1:25-cv-01808-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND COMPLY WITH SIERRA CLINICA VISTA, et al., THE LOCAL RULES 15 Defendants. (Doc. 4) 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 18 Relevant Background 19 Plaintiff Steven Whitfield (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, initiated this action with the filing of a first amended complaint against Defendant Clinica Sierra Vista, Inc.1 (“CSV” or “Defendant”) and physician assistant nurse “Nancy”2 on August 15, 2025, in the Kern County Superior Court, Case No. BCV-25-100020. (Doc. 1). The action was removed to this Court on December 11, 2025. See id. 24 On December 18, 2025, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss and served the Defendant notes in the notice of removal that it is erroneously sued as “Sierra Clinica Vista, Inc.” (Doc. 1 ¶ 1).

27 2 Defendant notes that Plaintiff has not served “Nancy” and it is understood that Plaintiff is pursuing his claims only against CSV. Id. ¶ 3.

1 motion upon Plaintiff.3 (Doc. 4). Plaintiff failed to file an opposition or statement of non- opposition as required under the Local Rules. See Local Rule 230. On January 12, 2026, Defendant filed a reply to its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 10).

4 Order to Show Cause 5 Local Rule 110, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 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.” Local Rule 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.

10 Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000). 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.

12 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).

17 Further, Local Rule 230 states in relevant part: “Opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion shall be in writing and shall be filed and served no later than fourteen (14) days after the motion was filed. A responding party who has no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in question.” Local Rule 230(c) (emphasis added).

22 Here, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before January 5, 2026. Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion, and the time to do so has now passed. Because Plaintiff’s conduct violates Local Rule 26 3 On December 19, 2025, the assigned district judge referred the pending motion to the undersigned for the preparation of findings and recommendations and/or other appropriate action, vacated the motion hearing, and noted that the filing of oppositions and replies is pursuant to Local Rule 230. (Doc. 5).

1 || 230, the undersigned will order Plaintiff to show cause in writing why sanctions should not issue.

2 Conclusion and Order 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of 5 service of this order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply 6 with the Local Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an 7 opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion to dismiss filed on 8 December 18, 2025 (Doc. 4).

9 2. Any failure by Plaintiff to respond to this Order may result_in_ the 10 recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey the Local Rules 11 and failure to prosecute.

12 IS SO ORDERED.

8 Dated: _ January 13, 2026 | Vv Vv RR 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE