(PS)Ferrantino v. Sacramento County Office of Education

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 10/7/2019 DIRECTING plaintiff to 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 13 Motion t o Dismiss is CONTINUED to 11/15/2019, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 27 (DB), before Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes. On or before 11/1/2019, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to defendant's motion. The 20 request to withdraw the previously filed motions for default judgment is GRANTED and the 14 and 15 motions for default judgment are DEEMED WITHDRAWN. (York, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY FERRANTINO, 12 13 14 15 16 No. 2:18-cv-3063 JAM DB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER SACRAMENTO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Defendant. 17 18 Plaintiff Anthony Ferrantino is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, 19 therefore, referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 20 636(b)(1). On August 30, 2019, and September 6, 2019, plaintiff filed motions for default 21 judgment. (ECF Nos. 14 & 15.) However, on October 4, 2019, plaintiff filed a documenting 22 styled “WITHDRAW MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT.” (ECF No. 20.) The previously 23 filed motions for default judgment will, therefore, be deemed withdraw. 24 Moreover, noticed for hearing before the undersigned on October 11, 2019, is defendant’s 25 motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff was to file an 26 opposition or a statement of non-opposition to defendant’s motion “not less than fourteen (14) 27 days preceding the noticed . . . hearing date.” Plaintiff, however, has failed to file a timely 28 opposition or statement of non-opposition. 1 1 The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may be 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 prosecution; 13 2. The October 11, 2019 hearing of defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is 14 continued to Friday, November 15, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 15 I Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; 16 17 3. On or before November 1, 2019, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendant’s motion 1; 4. Plaintiff’s October 4, 2019 request to withdraw the previously filed motions for default 18 19 judgment (ECF No. 20) is graned; 5. The August 30, 2019, and September 6, 2019 motions for default judgment (ECF Nos. 20 21 14 & 15) are deemed withdrawn; and 6. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the 22 23 recommendation that this case be dismissed. 24 DATED: October 7, 2019 25 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 1 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

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?