Zepeda v. Schuld et al

Filing 73

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff Ricardo Zepeda why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Show Cause Response due by 4/17/2017; ORDER continuing hearings on Defendants' 69 , 70 Motions to Dismiss to 5/4/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Plaintiff's oppositions are due by 4/17/2017. Defendants' Replies due by 4/24/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 4/3/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICARDO ZEPEDA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO
PLAINTIFF RICARDO ZEPEDA
Re: Dkt. Nos. 69, 70

WALTER N. SCHULD, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 4:13-cv-05761-KAW

12
13

Plaintiff Ricardo Zepeda, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit alleging civil rights

14

violations in connection with various contacts with law enforcement agencies and personnel,

15

including the San Pablo Police Department, the Richmond Police Department, and the Contra

16

Costa County Sheriff’s Department. On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a second amended

17

complaint.

18

On February 27, 2017, Defendants Richmond Police Department and Richmond Chief of

19

Police Chris Magnus filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 69.) On

20

February 28, 2017, San Pablo Police Department Chief Walter N. Schuld and Officer Brian Bubar

21

also filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 70.) Pursuant to Civil

22

Local Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s oppositions were due on March 14 and 15, 2017, respectively. To date,

23

Plaintiff has not filed either opposition.

24

Accordingly, by no later than April 17, 2017, the Court orders Plaintiff to (1) file a

25

response to this order to show cause and explain why his case should not be dismissed for failure

26

to prosecute, and (2) file separate oppositions to the motion to dismiss. The response to this order

27

to show cause and the opposition should be filed as separate documents. To aid in his compliance

28

with this order, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free

1

service for pro se litigants— by calling [phone] to make an appointment to obtain legal

2

assistance from a licensed attorney.

3

Failure to timely respond to this order to show cause may result in the dismissal of this

4

action for failure to prosecute. See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 22 (“The failure

5

of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to any motion

6

shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion”).

7
8

Should Plaintiff timely file one or both oppositions, Defendants are permitted to file their
replies on or before April 24, 2017.

9

Additionally, the April 20, 2017 hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to May 4,

10

2017 at U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2