Pimentel v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 50

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 8/17/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 DAVID W. PIMENTEL,

Plaintiff,

7
8

Case No: C 08-2121 SBA
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

vs.

9 COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
10

Defendants.

11
12

Plaintiff failed to appear for a telephonic Case Management Conference set for

13

October 8, 2008. Dkt. 34. On October 14, 2008, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause

14

as to why the case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15

41(b) for failure to prosecute. Id. The Court set a hearing for November 12, 2008, during

16

which Plaintiff informed the Court that he was unable to appear as a result with an

17

emergency involving his grandmother. Dkt. 36. The Court vacated its Order to Show

18

Cause. Id. On February 25, 2009, a telephonic Case Management Conference was

19

schedule and Plaintiff again failed to appear. Dkt. 46. The case was continued to April 1,

20

2009 for an Order to Show Cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for failure to

21

prosecute. Id. Although the Order to Show Cause hearing was not held, Plaintiff has made

22

no contact with the Court or otherwise prosecuted this action since he filed his last case

23

management statement on February 18, 2009. Dkt. 44. Accordingly,

24

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the

25

instant action should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for

26

failure to prosecute. Within ten (10) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff shall file a

27

memorandum explaining why the action should not be dismissed. The memorandum,

28

which shall be entitled, “Response to Order to Show Cause,” shall set forth the nature of the

1

cause, its present status, the reason it has not been brought to trial or otherwise terminated,

2

any basis for opposing dismissal and its expected course if not dismissed. FAILURE TO

3

FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS

4

TO DISMISS THE ACTION, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: August 17, 2011

_____________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
PIMENTEL et al,
4
Plaintiff,
5
v.
6
COUNTY OF SONOMA et al,
7

Defendant.
/

8
9

Case Number: CV08-02121 SBA
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
12

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.

13
14
15

That on August 17, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 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 inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

David W. Pimentel
1192 Liberty Road
Petaluma, CA 94952

20
Dated: August 17, 2011
21

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

22

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-