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)

Download PDF
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?