Wai v. Developmental Disabilities Services Organization Inc
Filing
5
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/16/2011 ORDERING 3 that Along with the parties' joint status report, which must be filed no later than seven days prior to the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for 1 2/1/2011, all parties must also file completed "Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge" forms. A party's failure to timely file completed "Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge" forms may subject that party to sanctions. (Reader, L)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
EDNA WAI
Plaintiff,
No. 2:11-cv-01782-GEB-KJN PS
11
vs.
12
13
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC.; and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,
14
Defendants.
ORDER
15
/
16
Plaintiff Edna Wai (the “plaintiff”) is proceeding without counsel in this action.1
17
18
This case is currently set for a status (pretrial scheduling) conference on December 1, 2011.
19
(Dkt. No. 3.) Along with the parties’ joint status report, which must be filed no later than seven
20
days prior to the status (pretrial scheduling) conference, all parties must also file completed
21
“Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge” forms. (Dkt. No. 3 at 2-3; Dkt.
22
No. 3-1.) These forms can be obtained from the Clerk’s Office or, alternatively, can be printed
23
from the court’s electronic docket in this case at Docket Number 3-1.
24
Without the parties’ “Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US Magistrate
25
1
26
This proceeding was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Local Rule 302(c)(21).
1
1
Judge” forms, the proper trial judge cannot be determined and the case cannot be properly set for
2
trial.2 A party’s failure to timely file completed “Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US
3
Magistrate Judge” forms may subject that party to sanctions.
4
////
5
////
6
////
7
////
8
////
9
////
10
////
11
12
13
2
Eastern District 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 authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the
Court.” Moreover, Eastern District Local Rule 183(a) provides, in part:
14
15
16
Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by
the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal Procedure, these Rules, and all other
applicable law. All obligations placed on “counsel” by these Rules apply to
individuals appearing in propria persona. Failure to comply therewith may be
ground for dismissal . . . or any other sanction appropriate under these Rules.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
See also King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the
same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). Case law is in accord that a district
court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s case pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where that plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case
or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the
court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that
a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to prosecute”); Hells Canyon
Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that
courts may dismiss an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) sua sponte
for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or the court’s
orders); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (“Failure to follow a
district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district
court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any order of the court.”); Thompson
v. Housing Auth. of City of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (stating
that district courts have inherent power to control their dockets and may impose sanctions
including dismissal).
26
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
Along with the parties’ joint status report, which must be filed no later than seven
3
days prior to the status (pretrial scheduling) conference currently set for December 1, 2011, all
4
parties must also file completed “Consent to / Decline of Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge”
5
forms. (Dkt. No. 3 at 2-3.) A party’s failure to timely file completed “Consent to / Decline of
6
Jurisdiction of US Magistrate Judge” forms may subject that party to sanctions.
7
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 16, 2011
9
10
11
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
]]>
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?
