Sarah Diane Slice v. City of Glendale et al

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/3/2015. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why judgment should not be entered in favor of the defense and the action dismissed under Lo cal Rule 7-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute the case. Alternatively, Plaintiff may request the voluntary dismissal of the action with no further consequence. Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that her failure to respond to this order will lead the Court to conclude that the motion is unopposed and may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Rules 12 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 41-1. (rh)

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

2:15-CV-01079-FMO-KLS

Title

Sarah Diane Slice v. City of Glendale et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 13, 2015

Karen L. Stevenson

Roxanne Horan-Walker

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

This is a pro se civil rights action that the Court recently transferred to Judge Stevenson’s
docket. Plaintiff filed a complaint in February 2015 alleging that City of Glendale police falsely
arrested her in January 2014. (Docket # 1.)
In June 2015, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re: Dismissal (“OSC”) for failure
to effectuate service of the summons and complaint within the time frame required under Rule
4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket #6.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to
file a response to the OSC by July 13, 2015. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC or
otherwise attempted to communicate with the Court regarding her case.
On July 6, 2015, the defense filed a filed a motion to dismiss this civil rights action
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with a hearing date set for
August 18, 2015. (Docket #7.) Under Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff’s response to the motion was
due not later than twenty-one (21) days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion.
In this case, the deadline would have been July 29, 2015. The Rule 7-9 deadline passed without
any action by Plaintiff.
A pro se litigant “is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence” as other parties
“who are represented by counsel.” United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984).
Local Rule 7-12 states that a party’s failure to file a required document such as an opposition to
a motion “may be deemed consent to the granting [ ] of the motion.” On that basis, the Court
could properly deem the motion unopposed and recommend dismissal of the action. However,
in the interests of justice, the Court has vacated the hearing date (Docket # 11) and will give
Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the motion and participate in the action that she
initiated.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

2:15-CV-01079-FMO-KLS

Date

Title

August 13, 2015

Sarah Diane Slice v. City of Glendale et al

Therefore, by or before September 3, 2015, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why
judgment should not be entered in favor of the defense and the action dismissed under Local
Rule 7-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 for failure to prosecute the case. Plaintiff’s
response to this OSC must include: (a) a sworn declaration (not to exceed 3 pages) explaining
the reasons why Plaintiff failed to timely respond to the motion; and (b) a complete and detailed
response (in a manner fully complying with the Local Rules) to the motion itself. The Court
will not extend this deadline but for extraordinary cause shown.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may request the voluntary dismissal of the action with no further
consequence.
Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that her failure to respond to this order will lead the
Court to conclude that the motion is unopposed and may result in the dismissal of this
action pursuant to Rules 12 and 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule
41-1.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2