Clarke v. City of Madera

Filing 42

ORDER To SHOW CAUSE, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/8/2010. Plaintiff's are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any they have, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference, failure to file a scheduling conference statement and failure to serve the complaint on the individual defendants. Show Cause Response due by 10/13/2010.(Scrivner, E)

Clarke et al v. City of Madera

Doc. 42

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 ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF MADERA, JEREMY HARLOW, ) SHANT SHEKLANIAN, FELIX ) GONZALES, BRENT CEDARQUIST, ) MATHEW MCCOMBS, MICHAEL ) KIME, SEAN PIERRE WILSON, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) STANLEY BRADFORD CLARKE, ANDREA VENTURI, 1:09cv01301 LJO DLB ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On June 22, 2010, Plaintiffs Stanley Bradford Clarke and Andrea Venturi ("Plaintiffs"), proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint naming Defendants City of Madera, Jeremy Harlow, Shant Sheklanian, Felix Gonzales, Brent Cedarquist, Mathew McCombs, Michael Kime, and Sean Pierre Wilson, along with Does 8 to 50 ("Defendants"). On June 28, 2010, the Court set a mandatory scheduling conference for September 8, 2010. The parties were directed to file a joint scheduling report one week prior to the conference. Subsequently, the Court granted Defendant City of Madera's motion to dismiss. The mandatory scheduling conference remained on calendar. On September 8, 2010, Plaintiffs failed to appear for the mandatory scheduling conference. Plaintiffs also failed to file a scheduling report. Additionally, Plaintiffs have failed to file proofs of 1

Dockets.Justia.com

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

service indicating that they have served any of the individual defendants named in this action. Therefore, Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any they have, why the action should not be dismissed for failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference, failure to file a scheduling conference statement and failure to serve the complaint on the individual defendants. Plaintiffs may comply with this order by filing proofs of service indicating that the complaint and summons were properly served on the individual defendants. Plaintiffs are advised of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, which specifies the proper methods for service of a summons and complaint. Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a response, or properly executed return of service forms, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to follow the Court's orders, failure to appear at the mandatory scheduling conference and failure to prosecute this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a

September 8, 2010

/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2