Zepeda v. Schuld et al

Filing 96

SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 9/8/2017; ORDER Continuing Hearing on 88 , 89 MOTIONS to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint to 10/5/2017 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Plain tiff's Opposition due by 9/8/2017. Replies due by 9/15/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/24/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/24/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/24/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (sisS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RICARDO ZEPEDA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
WALTER N. SCHULD, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:13-cv-05761-KAW
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO PLAINTIFF RICARDO ZEPEDA;
ORDER CONTINUING HEARING
DATE ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. Nos. 88, 89

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 July 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.

17

On July 27, 2017, San Pablo Police Department Chief Walter N. Schuld filed a motion to

18

dismiss the third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 88.) On July 28, 2017, the Richmond Defendants

19

also filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 89.) Pursuant to Civil Local

20

Rule 7-3, Plaintiff’s oppositions were both due on August 14, 2017. To date, Plaintiff has not

21

filed either opposition.

22

Accordingly, by no later than September 8, 2017, the Court orders Plaintiff (1) to file a

23

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

24

failure to prosecute, and (2) to file separate oppositions to the motions to dismiss. The response to

25

this order to show cause and the oppositions should be filed as separate documents. To aid in his

26

compliance with this order, Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help

27

Desk—a free service for pro se litigants— by calling [phone] to make an appointment to

28

obtain legal assistance from a licensed attorney.

1

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

2

this action with prejudice as to all defendants. See Judge Westmore’s General Standing Order ¶ 22

3

(“The failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to

4

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

5
6
7

Should Plaintiff timely file one or both oppositions, Defendants are permitted to file their
replies on or before September 15, 2017.
Additionally, the September 7, 2017 hearing on the motion to dismiss is continued to

8

October 5, 2017 at U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California at 11:00 a.m. in a

9

courtroom to be determined.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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