Creer v. City of Vallejo et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 1/9/17 ORDERING that Plaintiff show cause in writing within 14 days of the date of this order as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. The hearing on 53 Motion to D ismiss, and 54 Motion for Summary Judgment is CONTINUED to 2/17/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 2/3/2017, plaintiff shall file statements of opposition or non-opposition to defendants' motions. (Kastilahn, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LATASHA NICOLE CREER,
No. 2:14-cv-1428 JAM DB PS
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the
undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
On December 15, 2016, defendants noticed a motion to dismiss and a motion for partial
summary judgment for hearing before the undersigned on January 13, 2017. (ECF No. 63.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff was to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to
defendants’ motion “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.”
Plaintiff, however, has failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition.
The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may be
grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or
within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or
herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and
all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be
grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.
In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide
plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for her conduct along with a final opportunity to
oppose defendants’ motions.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why
this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution1;
2. The January 13, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 53 & 54) is continued
to Friday, February 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I Street,
Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;
3. On or before February 3, 2017, plaintiff shall file statements of opposition or nonopposition to defendants’ motions; and
4. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a
recommendation that this case be dismissed.
Dated: January 9, 2017
Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this civil action plaintiff may comply with
this order by filing a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
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?