Melendrez

(PC) Palmer v. Melendrez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 20241:22-cv-00800California489 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

20 The Court issued its Order re Consent/Decline of U.S. Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction on 21 August 13, 2024. (Doc. 28.) The parties were directed to complete and return the form within 30 22 days. (Id. at 3.) 23 On August 21, 2024, Defendants filed a completed Consent/Decline form. (Doc. 29.) 24 Despite the passage of more than 30 days, Plaintiff has failed to submit a completed 25 Consent/Decline form as ordered. 26 // 27 // I. DISCUSSION The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[flailure of counsel or of a party to comply with .. . any order of the Court may be grounds for 4 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 6 that power, may impose sanctions, including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Auth., 7 City of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action based on a 8 party’s failure to prosecute an action, obey a court order, or comply with local rules. See, e.g., …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.