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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?