Pringle

Pringle v. Walmart Distribution Center

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaNovember 13, 20201:19-cv-00468California736 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. Discussion

26 27 The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action for all purposes, including trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. Nos. 15, 17, 18.) Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . 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 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise of that power they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate, . . . dismissal.” Thompson v. Hous. Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,…

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.