IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 26, 2012
GARY DAVID BALDWIN, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF SHASTA; ET AL.,
On June 13, 2012, as amended June 15, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why the above-captioned matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF 28, 29.) Plaintiff has failed to file a response, timely or otherwise.
"[A] federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute . . . ." Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 49 (1991). Local Rule 110 states: "Failure of counsel or 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."
A quick glance at the docket is sufficient to show that plaintiff has wholly failed to comply with the court's order and to prosecute this case; the last action taken by plaintiff was the submission of two letters to the court on July 13, 2011. (ECF 23, 24.)
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1) This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and
2) This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.