Jordan v. San Francisco Police Dept et al

Filing 115

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 5/16/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

GABRIEL L. JORDAN,
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

8

vs.

9

ESPINOZA, ET AL.,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

CASE NO. 14-cv-02113-YGR

Defendants.
The Court has attempted to hold a case management conference in the above-captioned

12

action several times since plaintiff was released from custody in September 2016, but plaintiff has

13

continuously failed to appear or failed to meet court-ordered deadlines. Specifically:

14

On October 24, 2016, the Court held an initial case management conference, but plaintiff

15

failed to appear at the same. (Dkt. No. 96.) On October 26, 2016, the Court issued an order to

16

show cause regarding plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, explaining that plaintiff’s failure to file a

17

written response or appear at the hearing on such order may result in dismissal of his action. (Dkt.

18

No. 97.) The Court held a hearing on such order to show cause on November 10, 2016, but again,

19

plaintiff did not appear, nor did plaintiff file a written response. (Dkt. No. 98.) Thus, on

20

November 21, 2016, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s action without prejudice for failure to

21

prosecute. (Dkt. No. 99.)

22

On November 30, 2016, the Court received a communication from plaintiff, explaining

23

that he had been in custody. (Dkt. No. 101.) On the basis of such communication, the Court

24

withdrew its order dismissing the case, and set another case management conference for February

25

27, 2017. (Dkt. No. 102.) Per the Local Rules and the Court’s standing order, plaintiff was

26

required to file a case management statement by February 20, 2017 in preparation for the case

27

management conference. Plaintiff failed to do so. On February 22, 2017, the Court issued a

28

second order to show cause for failure to prosecute, requiring that plaintiff respond by March 24,

1

2017 and vacating the February 27, 2017 case management conference again. (Dkt. No. 106.) On

2

March 23, 2017, plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, indicating his intent to

3

continue his prosecution of this action. On such basis, the Court reset the case management

4

conference for a third time on May 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 111.) Plaintiff again failed to file a case

5

management statement in advance of the conference and then failed to appear for the case

6

management conference on May 15, 2017. (Dkt. No. 114.)

7

In light of the above case history and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the

8

above-captioned action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute. The Clerk

9

shall close the file.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 16, 2017
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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