Wichelman v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
26
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/4/11 RESCHEDULING Status Conference for 1/18/2012 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 24 (EFB) before Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan. Show Cause Response why sanctions should not be impo sed for faiure to file a status report in compliance with the court's 9/20/11 Order due by 1/4/2012; on or before 12/14/11 the parties shall meet and confer, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f); on or before 1/4/12, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth the matters referenced in the courts 5/5/11 Order. (Meuleman, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
KARL WICHELMAN,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
No. CIV S-11-915 JAM EFB PS
vs.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT; SACRAMENTO
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE; STARR McKERSIE; STACY
WAGGONER; JOHN OTTER,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
15
Defendants.
/
16
17
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the
18
undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On May 5, 2011,
19
the undersigned granted plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, directed the
20
Clerk of the Court to issue process and provide plaintiff with the necessary documents for
21
service, and directed plaintiff to supply the United States Marshal with all information and
22
documents needed to effect service of process. Dckt. No. 4. Also on May 5, 2011, the court
23
issued an order which, among other things, set a status (pretrial scheduling) conference for
24
September 14, 2011, directed plaintiff to serve a copy of the order concurrently with service of
25
process, and directed the parties to file status reports within fourteen days of the September 14,
26
2011 conference. Dckt. No. 6.
1
1
On September 7, 2011, the undersigned issued an order continuing the initial status
2
(pretrial scheduling) conference in this action to November 2, 2011 due to the parties’ failure to
3
timely file status reports as required. Dckt. No. 16. The order also required the parties to show
4
cause, in writing, on or before October 19, 2011, why sanctions should not be imposed for their
5
failures to file status reports, and to file such status reports by October 19, 2011. Id. at 2.
6
Defendants the County of Sacramento (sued as the Sacramento Sheriff Department and the
7
Sacramento District Attorneys Office), Starr McKersie, and Stacy Waggoner responded to the
8
order to show cause on September 14, 2011. Dckt. No. 17. Then, on September 20, 2011,
9
plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause and to file
10
a status report. Dckt. No. 18. Although plaintiff did not clearly specify why an extension of
11
time was needed, the request was granted. Dckt. No. 19. The status conference was continued
12
to November 16, 2011, plaintiff was given until November 2, 2011 to respond to the order to
13
show cause, and the parties were directed to file a joint status report by November 2, 2011. Id.
14
The order further provided that “[f]ailure of the parties to comply with this order may result in
15
the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of
16
prosecution and/or for failure to comply with this court’s orders and Local Rules. See Fed. R.
17
Civ. P. 41(b).” Id.
18
On November 1, 2011, defendants the County of Sacramento (sued as the Sacramento
19
Sheriff Department and the Sacramento District Attorneys Office), Starr McKersie, and Stacy
20
Waggoner filed a status report. Dckt. No. 24. However, the docket reveals that plaintiff has
21
failed to file a status report, as required by the September 20, 2011 order.1 The aforementioned
22
defendants’ status report also indicates that defendants attempted to reach plaintiff in order to
23
meet and confer, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), but were unable to reach
24
him. Id. at 1. Therefore, the undersigned will continue the status (pretrial scheduling)
25
1
26
Defendant John Otter also failed to file a status report. However, the docket reveals that
the summons for John Otter was returned unexecuted. Dckt. No. 12.
2
1
conference and will order plaintiff to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to
2
file a status report as ordered. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to
3
comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the
4
Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the
5
Court.”); see also E.D. Cal. L.R. 183 (“Any individual representing himself or herself without an
6
attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure and by these Local
7
Rules.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Failure to follow a district court’s
8
local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”). The court will also order the parties to meet and
9
confer, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), and to file a joint status report if
10
possible.
11
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
12
1. The status conference currently scheduled for November 16, 2011, is rescheduled for
13
January 18, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.
14
2. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before January 4, 2012, why sanctions
15
should not be imposed for failure to file a status report in compliance with the court’s September
16
20, 2011 order.
17
18
3. On or before December 14, 2011, the parties shall meet and confer, as required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
19
4. On or before January 4, 2012, the parties shall file a joint status report setting forth the
20
matters referenced in the court’s May 5, 2011 order.2
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
2
26
If the parties are unable to file a joint status report, separate status reports may be filed.
However, the parties shall explain therein why they were unable to obtain a joint status report.
3
1
5. Failure of the parties to comply with this order may result in the imposition of
2
sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution
3
and/or for failure to comply with this court’s orders and Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
4
SO ORDERED.
5
DATED: November 4, 2011.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
