Michele Petersen v. County of Stanislaus et al
Filing
22
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE re Dismissal of Action, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/20/12. Show Cause Response Deadline: 4:00 p.m. on 12/21/2012.(Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHELE PETERSEN,
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS; CHRISTINE )
APPLEGATE; KIM VIEIRA; BERGEN
)
FILGAS; GEORGE MEDINE; DOE 1;
)
DOE 2; DOE 3; DOE 4; DOES 5
)
through 25, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
1:12-cv-00933-AWI-BAM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:
DISMISSAL OF ACTION
18
19
The Court refers the parties to previous orders for a complete chronology of the proceedings. On
20
May 3, 2012, plaintiff Michele Petersen (“Plaintiff”) filed her complaint against defendants County
21
of Stanislaus, Christine Applegate, Kym Vieira (erroneously sued as Kim Vieira), Bergen Filgas,
22
George Medine (collectively “Defendants”), Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4 and Does 5 through 25
23
asserting causes of action for employment discrimination, harassment, deprivation of civil rights,
24
breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional
25
infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision and defamation. On June 8, 2012, Defendants
26
removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b).
27
On June 15, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
28
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(e). Plaintiff did not file a written opposition to
1
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 12, 2012, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
2
complaint in its entirety and directed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days of
3
entry of the order. No amended complaint was filed by Plaintiff within the time allotted.
4
“If the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with . . . a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss
5
the action or any claim against it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
6
1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (listing factors for court to consider in determining whether to dismiss a case
7
for failure to comply with a court order). Where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court’s
8
orders, the court may also dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b) sua sponte. Hells Canyon
9
Preservation Council v. United States Forest Service, 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005).
10
Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to show cause in writing by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, December
11
21, 2012, why no amended complaint has been filed and why this action should not be dismissed for
12
failure to comply with the Court’s October 12, 2012 order. Failure to show cause or otherwise
13
respond to this order shall result in a dismissal of the action with prejudice as against all defendants.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated:
0m8i78
November 20, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?