(PC) Aguilar v. Macomber et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOAQUIN AGUILAR,
Plaintiff,
v.
MACOMBER, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00916-SAB (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED
FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR
AND FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT
ORDER
(ECF No. 17)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Joaquin Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds
against Defendants Jeff Macomber, Ron Broomfield, Stuart Sherman, unidentified lieutenant in
Receiving and Release, and John Does 1 through 6, for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s safety
in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants Macomber, Broomfield, and Sherman
answered the complaint on July 2, 2026. (ECF No. 16.)
On July 7, 2026, the Court identified this case as appropriate for the post-screening ADR
(Alternative Dispute Resolution) project, stayed the action to allow the parties an opportunity to
settle their dispute, and issued an order setting the matter for a video settlement conference before
the undersigned on October 14, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. (ECF No. 17.) The Court served Plaintiff with
a copy of the July 7, 2026 order at his last known address.
Case 1:25-cv-00916-SAB Document 23 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
On October 8, 2026, the Court issued a minute order indicating that the October 14, 2026
settlement conference would be held via Zoom video conference or Zoom telephone number.
The Court noted that a copy of the Zoom contact information was mailed to Plaintiff’s last known
address. (ECF No. 21.) The Court also served Plaintiff with a copy of the minute order at his last
known address.
On October 14, 2026, the Court convened a video settlement conference. Although the
Court remained on the Zoom video conference until approximately 9:45 a.m., Plaintiff did not
appear.
Pursuant to Local Rule 110, “[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.” L.R. 110. The Court has the inherent power to control its
docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including
dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing within
twenty-one (21) days after service of this order why sanctions should not be imposed for the
failure to appear at the settlement conference or otherwise comply with the Court’s orders.
Failure to respond to this order will result in the imposition of sanctions, including a
recommendation for dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00916-SAB Document 23 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2