Clark v. County of Sacramento et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 12/29/16 ORDERING that plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing within 14 days as to why this case shall not be dismissed for lack of prosection; the 01/06/17 hearing on the 30 Motion to Dismiss is RESET for 2/3/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes; plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendants' 30 Motion to Dismiss by 01/20/17. (Benson, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:15-cv-1211 JAM DB PS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, 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 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended
complaint and noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on January 6, 2017. (ECF
No. 30.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff was to file an opposition or statement of non-
opposition to defendant’s 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-
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 defendant’s motion.
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 6, 2017 hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 30) is
continued to Friday, February 3, 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 January 20, 2017, plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or nonopposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss; 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: December 29, 2016
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?