Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sergio P. Garcia v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 5, 2012

SERGIO P. GARCIA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER

Sergio Garcia ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se and in this action against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, One West Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, and MTC Financial (collectively, "Defendants"). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted on August 28, 2012. (Doc. 16). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within thirty days of the Court's order, or no later than September 27, 2008. Id. at 9. However, to date, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: "Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court." Local Rule 110. "District courts have inherent power to control their dockets," and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute 2 an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. 3 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order 4 requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) 5 (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th 6 Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). 7

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service

8 of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure comply with 9 the Court's order, or in the alternative, to file a First Amended Complaint in accordance with the Court's order dated August 28, 2012 (Doc. 16).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121005

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.