John v. County of Sacramento

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 7/30/2018 ORDERING 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 8/3/2018 hearing of defendant 9;s 21 Motion to dismiss is CONTINUED to 8/24/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 27 (DB) before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes; on or before 8/10/2018 plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or non-opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
RAJ SINGH1,

11
12

No. 2:16-cv-1640 JAM DB PS
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff, Raj Singh, is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was referred to the

18

undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff is

19

proceeding on a third amended complaint filed on June 4, 2018. (ECF No. 20.)
On June 18, 2018, defendant Joyce Thorgrimson filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 21.)

20
21

That motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on August 3, 2018. (ECF No. 22.)

22

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff was to file opposition or a statement of non-opposition to

23

defendant’s motion “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.”

24

Plaintiff, however, has failed to file a timely opposition or statement of non-opposition.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff commenced this action under the fictitious name John John. (ECF No. 1.) However,
on May 23, 2018, plaintiff’s motion to proceed anonymously was denied and plaintiff was
ordered to file a third amended complaint under plaintiff’s true name. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint on June 4, 2018, identifying plaintiff’s name as Raj Singh. (ECF
No. 20.)
1

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

1
2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.

7

In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide

8

plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for plaintiff’s conduct along with a final

9

opportunity to oppose defendant’s motion.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

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

12

this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution2;

13

2. The August 3, 2018 hearing of defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 21) is

14

continued to Friday, August 24, 2018, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I

15

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

16
17

3. On or before August 10, 2018, plaintiff shall file a statement of opposition or nonopposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss; and

18

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

19

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

20

Dated: July 30, 2018

21
22
23
24

DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/sing1640.osc.cont.hrg.ord

25
26
27
28

2

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.
2