Summers v. Turner et al

Filing 27

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 8, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
CHRISTOPHER JAMAR SUMMERS,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 11-04147 WHA

v.

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al,

14

Defendants.
/

15
16

Under FRCP 41(b), if a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case or to comply with a court

17

order, his action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed this

18

action claiming RICO violations and fraud related to defendants’ unlawful detainer action against

19

plaintiff in the Marin County Superior Court and his subsequent eviction. Plaintiff filed the initial

20

and first amended complaints in August 2011 (Dkt. Nos. 1, 6). Plaintiff then requested and was

21

granted leave to file a second amended complaint (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff never filed his second

22

amended complaint. In October 2011, an order was issued to remind plaintiff to file his second

23

amended complaint (Dkt. No. 19). Plaintiff did not respond. Plaintiff’s operative complaint was

24

incomprehensible and failed to state a legal cause of action.

25

Defendant Wells Fargo moved to dismiss the complaint, and a hearing on the motion was

26

noticed for December 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 20). Plaintiff, however, failed to file an opposition to

27

the motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3. An order dated November 17, 2011, warned

28

plaintiff that his opposition brief was past due and set a new deadline by which plaintiff was
permitted to

1

file the opposition brief: December 1 (Dkt. No. 23). The order also warned plaintiff that if he

2

failed to respond, defendant’s motion may be granted as unopposed.

3

To date, plaintiff has yet to file an opposition brief or to request leave to file a late brief;

4

he has not responded to defendant’s motion or the Court’s order in any way. Furthermore,

5

plaintiff failed to show up at today’s case management conference.

6
7

Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case. This action will be DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: December 8, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2