Van Dusen v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Show Cause Response due by 3/14/2014. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 3/7/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/7/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ls, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division JAN VAN DUSEN, 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 No. C 13-05023 LB Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 13 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., [Re: ECF No. 14] 14 15 Defendants. _____________________________________/ 16 On October 28, 2013, Jan Van Dusen, who is proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against 51 17 separate defendants. Since then, the court has granted her motion to proceed in forma pauperis, 18 ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve those defendants, and reminded Ms. Van Dusen of her need to 19 provide the Clerk of the Court with addresses for those defendants and of the requirement that they 20 be served within 120 days of her filing the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). On January 30, 21 2014, Ms. Van Dusen filed an ex parte motion to file a First Amended Complaint. Motion, ECF No. 22 13. She said that allowing her to do so would allow her to better state her claims against certain 23 defendants. On February 10, 2014, the court granted her motion and gave her leave to file a First 24 Amended Complaint by February 24, 2014. 2/10/2014 Order, ECF No. 14. 25 It is now nearly two weeks past February 24, 2014, and Ms. Van Dusen has not filed a First 26 Amended Complaint. See generally Docket. The court ORDERS her to show cause why the case 27 should not be dismissed for her failure to prosecute it. She shall do so by filing a written 28 explanation no later than March 14, 2014. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case C 13-05023 LB ORDER 1 without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 2 1992) (court may dismiss an action based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action); see also 3 Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth five non-exhaustive factors 4 for the court to consider). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2014 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C 13-05023 LB ORDER 2

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?