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).

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