Louis v. Puckett et al

Filing 24

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 6/30/09. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2009)

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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOUIS A. DALLAN, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) v. ) ) PUCKETT, et al., ) ) Defendants. _________________________________ ) No. C 07-6293 JSW (PR) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff, a California prisoner, filed this pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C § 1983. On April 24, 2008, this Court ordered service of the complaint on Defendant Puckett. On August 22, 2008, Defendant moved for summary judgment and in October, 2008, Plaintiff filed two requests for an extension of time to file an opposition, in which he argued that he did not have access to documents necessary to prepare an opposition to the motion. On February 26, 2009, this Court denied the motion for summary judgment without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), which provides that if a party opposing summary judgment demonstrates that for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the trial court may deny the motion for summary judgment or continue the hearing to allow for such discovery or issue any other just order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir. 1998). This Court also ordered Plaintiff to file in Court and serve on Defendant's counsel within 30 days of the date of the order a notice informing the Court

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

of whether he had obtained his legal property since filing his most recent extension request and ordering Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's filing. However, more than 30 days have passed since Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the Court's order and he has failed to do so. Therefore, Plaintiff is now ordered to show cause within 30 days of the date of this order why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. A district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 30, 2009 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge

2

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
Dated: June 30, 2009 v. PUCKETT et al, Defendant. DALLAN LOUIS, Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case Number: CV07-06293 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on June 30, 2009, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Dallan A. Louis V-78658 California State Prison-Los Angeles P.O. Box 4670 Lancaster, CA 93539

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk