Elissa Rubenstein v. Whittier Police Department et al

Filing 61

Order To Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure To Prosecute And Comply With Court Orders by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/27/2015. (dts)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-9549-JLS (KK)

Title

Elissa Rubenstein v. Whittier Police Department, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

October 13, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order To Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be
Dismissed For Failure To Prosecute And Comply With Court Orders

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 23, 2014, Plaintiff Elissa Rubenstein (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, filed a Fifth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against defendants
Whittier Police Department Officers Ed Nyberg, Jason Plank, Jose Bolanos, Mike
Karson, Richard Jensen, David Cheng, and Jason Esquivel (“Defendants”). ECF Docket
No. (“Dkt.”) 26. The FAC alleges clams arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth
Amendment. Id.
On October 27, 2014, the Court issued an Order Directing Service of Process by
the United States Marshal. Dkt. 24.
On April 24, 2014, Defendants filed an answer to the FAC. Dkt. 54.
On April 24, 2014, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order
(“Order”) which required, among other things, the parties to each file and serve a status
report no later than September 25, 2015. Dkt. 55.
As of October 13, 2015, Plaintiff has failed to file her required status report.1

1

The Court notes Defendants have also failed to file their required status report.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-9549-JLS (KK)

Date

Title

October 13, 2015

Elissa Rubenstein v. Whittier Police Department, et al.

II.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with
prejudice for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with any court order. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a status report, and thus, failed to comply with the
Court’s April 24, 2014 Order. Consequently, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b), the Court may dismiss the instant action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and
comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). However, before dismissing this
action, the Court will afford Plaintiff an opportunity to explain her failure to file a status
report as directed by this Court’s Order.
III.
ORDER
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 27, 2015 to respond to this Order. The
Court cautions Plaintiff that the Court will deem her failure to timely file a response to
this Order as consent to the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2