Vail v. City of Sacramento
Filing
35
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/15/18 ORDERING that within 14 days from the date of this order, the court will issue plaintiff an order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to plaintiff's lack of prosecution-unless defendant has filed a responsive pleading. If defendant has filed a responsive pleading, the court will forgo such an order, and plaintiff should respond to defendant's pleading accordingly. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TERRENCE VAIL,
12
No. 2:16-cv-2673 DB PS
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ORDER
CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
15
Defendant.
16
17
Plaintiff commenced this action on November 10, 2016 by filing a complaint and paying
18
the required filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant City of Sacramento filed a motion to dismiss on
19
June 20, 2017. (ECF No. 16.) By order signed February 6, 2018, plaintiff’s complaint was
20
dismissed and plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint that cured the defects
21
noted in that order.1 (ECF No. 26.)
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 21, 2018. (ECF No. 33.) Defendant City of
22
23
Sacramento has failed to file a responsive pleading. “Rule 55 provides a ‘two-step process’ for
24
the entry of judgment against a party who fails to defend: first, the entry of a default, and second,
25
the entry of a default judgment.” City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114,
26
128 (2nd Cir. 2011) (quoting New York v. Green, 420 F.3d 99, 104 (2nd Cir. 2005)).
27
28
1
The parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (ECF No. 12.)
1
1
The parties are advised that within fourteen days from the date of this order, the court will
2
issue plaintiff an order to show cause as to why this action should not be dismissed due to
3
plaintiff’s lack of prosecution—unless defendant has filed a responsive pleading. If defendant
4
has filed a responsive pleading, the court will forgo such an order, and plaintiff should respond to
5
defendant’s pleading accordingly.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2018
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.consent/vail2673.osc5
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?