Smith v. Office of the Attorney General for the State of California et al
Filing
67
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/8/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JAMES D. SMITH,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 12-02463 JSW
ORDER DEFERRING RULING
ON RESPONSE TO ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
ET AL.,
13
Defendants.
14
/
15
16
On November 5, 2012, because of the multiple amended complaints and motions filed in
17
this matter and in order to clarify, the Court Ordered that the operative complaint would be the
18
fifth amended complaint received by the Court on October 19, 2012 (docket no. 51), which was
19
deemed filed as November 5, 2012. In that Order, the Court also ordered that the fifth amended
20
complaint would be the LAST iteration of the complaint filed in this matter, and it required
21
Defendants to file their responsive pleading by no later than 14 days after service of the Order
22
dated November 5, 2012. Notwithstanding this Order, on November 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a
23
motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint, which is scheduled to be heard on February
24
22, 2013. Under the local rules, Defendants’ opposition would have been due on or about
25
December 2, 2012. Defendants have not opposed the motion.
26
On January 16, 2013, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a sixth
27
amended complaint, on the basis that the Court had ordered that the Fifth Amended Complaint
28
would be the LAST iteration of the Complaint. (Docket No. 61.) In that Order, the Court also
1
Ordered Plaintiff to show cause why the Court should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute,
2
and it directed Plaintiff to file a response to the Order to Show Cause by February 1, 2013. The
3
Court also noted that if Plaintiff sought to file a belated opposition brief to Defendants’ motion,
4
he must show good cause for his request and must submit a proposed opposition brief with that
5
request. The Court also ordered that any such request would also be due by no later than
6
February 1, 2013.
7
On January 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s Order dated
8
January 16, 2013, as well as several orders that the Court issued earlier in the case. Plaintiff
9
also filed his response to the Order to Show Cause, setting forth his reasons why the Court
should not dismiss the case for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff did not seek leave to file a belated
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
opposition to the pending motion to dismiss.
12
13
14
15
The Court shall defer ruling on Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause until the
United States Court of Appeals has addressed Plaintiff’s appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 8, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JAMES D SMITH,
Case Number: CV12-02463 JSW
8
Plaintiff,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
9
v.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
11 et al,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
Defendant.
/
13
14 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
15
That on February 8, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
16 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
17 inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
18
19
James D. Smith
20 705 N. State Street #547
Ukiah, CA 95482
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: February 8, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
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?