Nilsen v. Lunas et al

Filing 109

ORDER dismissing case. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 08/20/2018. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL DAVID NILSEN,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.

9

Docket No. 108

10

RYAN ERICKSON, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-03631-EMC

Defendants.

12
Previously, the Court granted the Sutter Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Mr.

13
14

Nilsen’s motion for entry of default against the individual CHP officers. At that time, the Court

15

also issued an order instructing Mr. Nilsen to show cause as to why the claims against the

16

individual CHP officers should not be also dismissed based on collateral estoppel. The Court gave

17

Mr. Nilsen two weeks to file a response and expressly warned him that, if no response were timely

18

filed, then the Clerk of the Court would “dismiss the claims against the CHP officers with

19

prejudice and close the file in the case (as all claims against all defendants will have been

20

resolved.” Docket No. 108 (order).

21

The time for Mr. Nilsen to file a response to the order to show cause has passed. The

22

Court has received no response from Mr. Nilsen. Accordingly, the Court hereby dismisses the

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

claims against the individual CHP officers with prejudice and orders the Clerk of the Court to

2

enter a final judgment and close the file in this case.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: August 20, 2018

7
8
9

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2