White et al v. City of Vallejo

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 2/23/2017 ORDERING, within 14 days, plaintiffs shall SHOW CAUSE in writing as to why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution; the 3/3/2017 hearing on defendants' motion for su mmary judgment is CONTINUED to 4/7/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes; on or before 3/24/2017, plaintiffs shall file statements of opposition or non-opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment; and plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA
WHITE, G’SHELLE WHITE AND
DANTRELL STEVENS,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiffs,

No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM DB PS

ORDER

v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs are 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).

20

On January 31, 2017, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and noticed that

21

motion for hearing before the undersigned on March 3, 2017. (ECF No. 69.) Pursuant to Local

22

Rule 230(c) plaintiffs were to file oppositions or statements of non-opposition to defendants’

23

motion “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.” No plaintiff,

24

however, has filed a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition.

25

The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may be

26

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or

27

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or

28

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and
1

1

all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be

2

grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.
In light of plaintiffs’ pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide

3
4

plaintiffs with an opportunity to show good cause for their conduct along with a final opportunity

5

to oppose defendants’ motion.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiffs show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why

8

this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution1;
2. The March 3, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.

9
10

69) is continued to Friday, April 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501

11

I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned;

12
13

3. On or before March 24, 2017, plaintiffs shall file statements of opposition or nonopposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and

14

4. Plaintiffs are cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in a

15

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

16

Dated: February 23, 2017

17
18
19
20
21
22

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/white1603.osc.cont

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Alternatively, if any plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this civil action they may comply with
this order by filing a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
2