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)

Download PDF
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?