Petersen v. City of Oakley et al

Filing 84

ORDER DISMISSING CASE (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 12/5/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

MICHAEL PETERSEN,

Case No. 18-cv-02448-LB

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

v.

13
14

CITY OF OAKLEY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On November 24, 2019, after the plaintiff failed to appear for his ENE session on November 4,

18

2019, the court issued an order to show cause why the court should not dismiss the case for the

19

plaintiff’s failure to prosecute it, ordered the plaintiff’s counsel to file a written update about his

20

efforts to locate the plaintiff by December 3, 2019, and directed the plaintiff to appear in person at

21

the show-cause hearing on December 5, 2019.1 The plaintiff did not file an update on December 3,

22

2019. On December 4, 2019, the court issued an order reminding the plaintiff that his written

23

update was past due and that his failure to prosecute his case risked dismissal of his case.2 At the

24
25
26
27

1

Order – ECF No. 79 at 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint
citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

2

Order – ECF No. 80 at 1.

28
ORDER – No. 18-cv-02448-LB 

1

December 5 hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel explained that he still was unable to locate the

2

plaintiff.3
The court’s earlier order describes Mr. Peterson’s failure to prosecute his case, beginning with

3
4

discovery issues in 2018, more issues in 2019, and the plaintiff’s failures to comply with court

5

orders.4 In orders filed on March 1, 2019 and June 24, 2019, the court warned Mr. Peterson of the

6

consequences of failing to prosecute his case, including monetary and terminating sanctions.5 The

7

court repeated these warnings in the order to show cause filed on November 14, 2019.6
Under the circumstances, the court dismisses the case with prejudice based on the plaintiff’s

8
9

failure to prosecute it.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Dated: December 5, 2019
______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3

See Order – ECF No. 79 at 3–4 (describing Mr. Peterson’s situation).

4

Order – ECF No. 79 at 1–4.

27

5

Order – ECF No. 53 at 3–5; Order – ECF No. 66 at 3.

28

6

Order – ECF No. 79 at 4;

26

ORDER – No. 18-cv-02448-LB

2