(PC) Wallace v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

I. INTRODUCTION

21 On October 4, 2021, Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 22 Ourique, and Smith (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 23 46.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), and as explained in Defendants’ Notice of Motion (ECF No. 24 46 at 1-2), Plaintiff had 21 days to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to 25 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to do so. 26 On January 13, 2022, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the action should not 27 be dismissed for a failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 49.) Plaintiff was given 21 days within which to respond. (Id.) Although more than 60 days have elapsed, Plaintiff has failed to respond. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard The Local Rules, corresponding with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, provide, “[f]ailure 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 8 …