Brown v. Dept of Homeland Security et al

Filing 5

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/23/12 ORDERING Plaintiff to show cause in a writing to be filed no later than 11/2/12, why sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel under Rule 16(f) of the FRCP fo r failure to file a timely status report. Status Conference RESCHEDULED for 1/14/2013 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior to the status conference. Fu rther, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the FRCP that failure to serve Defendants Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, and Joshua Matthew Edwards with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may result in the unserved defendant(s) and/or this action being dismissed. To avoid dismissal, on or before 11/9/12, Plaintiff shall file proof of service for these defendants or a sufficient explanation why service was not effected within Rule 4(m)'s prescribed service period. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HERBERT C. BROWN,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

11

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD,
JOSHUA MATTHEW EDWARDS,

12

Defendants.
________________________________

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-01853-GEB-GGH
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE; FED.
R. CIV. P. 4(M) NOTICE

13
14

The July 13, 2012, Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

15

Conference scheduled a status conference in this case on October 29,

16

2012, and required the parties to file a joint status report no later

17

than fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduling conference. The July

18

13th Order further required that a status report be filed regardless of

19

whether a joint report could be procured. No status report was filed as

20

ordered.

21

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) in a

22

writing to be filed no later than November 2, 2012, why sanctions should

23

not be imposed against him and/or his counsel under Rule 16(f) of the

24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to file a timely status

25

report. The written response shall also state whether Plaintiff or his

26

counsel is at fault, and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If

27
28

1

“If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact
(continued...)
1

1

a hearing is requested, it will be held on January 14, 2013, at 9:00

2

a.m., just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that

3

date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than

4

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

5

Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the Federal

6

Rules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendants Department of

7

Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, and Joshua Matthew Edwards

8

with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may

9

result in the unserved defendant(s) and/or this action being dismissed.

10

To avoid dismissal, on or before November 9, 2012, Plaintiff shall file

11

proof of service for these defendants or a sufficient explanation why

12

service was not effected within Rule 4(m)’s prescribed service period.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 23, 2012

15
16

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

(...continued)
of sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that
is where the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” Matter of
Sanction of Baker, 744 F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied,
471 U.S. 1014 (1985). Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their
consequences, are visited upon clients. In re Hill, 775 F.2d 1385, 1387
(9th Cir. 1985).
2