Kliegman v. County of Humboldt
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Show Cause Response due by 8/13/2010. Signed by Judge Vadas on 7/21/10. (cmw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
STEVEN L. KLIEGMAN, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, / Defendant.
No. C 09-0006 NJV ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff Steven L. Kliegman, by and through his counsel, filed a complaint on January 1, 2009 against defendant County of Humboldt alleging denial of right of access under Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Unruh Act, and various provisions of the California Health and Safety Code and the California Code of Regulations. (Doc #1) Plaintiff's complaint seeks both monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. On December 7, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel and provided Plaintiff with thirty (30) days to identify new counsel or indicate his intention to proceed pro se. On May 17, 2010, due to plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's December 7, 2009 order regarding his intention to obtain new counsel or represent himself, the Court substituted plaintiff pro se and relieved his former counsel. (Doc. #31)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
On January 20, 2010, a status conference was set for February 16, 2010. Plaintiff failed to appear at the February 16, 2010 status conference, and another status conference was set for March 16, 2010, at which Plaintiff appeared pro se. On April 15, 2010, defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, to which plaintiff did not file a timely response. On May 17, 2010, the Court ordered plaintiff to respond to defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings by May 24, 2010. (Doc. #32) Although plaintiff failed to respond to the motion, it was ultimately denied by the Court on June 10, 2010. In its order denying defendant's motion, the Court set a case management conference for August 24, 2010 and ordered the parties to submit a Joint Case Management and Pretrial Order no later than July 2, 2010. (Doc. #33) On July 2, 2010, defendant submitted a pretrial conference statement indicating that plaintiff failed to respond to multiple requests that he contact defense counsel in order to prepare the aforementioned Joint Case Management and Pretrial Order. Id. Defendant also indicated that it has been "hampered in preparing for trial due to defendant's inability to establish contact with plaintiff in order to meet and confer regarding trial issues." Id. At 3. Plaintiff Steven L. Kleigman is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiff must file his response in writing by no later than August 13, 2010. Plaintiff is advised that his failure to show cause in writing may result in the court dismissing his case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2010
NANDOR J. VADAS United States Magistrate Judge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Steven L. Kliegman P.O. Box 204 Piercy, CA 95587 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on July 21, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the attached Order to Show Cause, by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail. v. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, / Defendant. STEVEN L. KLIEGMAN, Plaintiff, No. C 09-0006 NJV CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION
Chris Wolpert Administrative Law Clerk to the Honorable Nandor J. Vadas
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?