Williams v. Perez et al

Filing 60

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Plaintiff. Show Cause Response due by 9/18/2017. Plaintiff must also file her opposition by 9/18/2017. Defendants' replies are due by 9/25/2017. ORDER CONTINUING HEARING on 45 , 48 Motions to Dismiss to 11/2/2017 11:0 0 AM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore. Initial Case Management Conference continued to 12/5/2017 01:30 PM. Case Management Statement due by 11/28/2017. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 8/31/2017. (kawlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRANDON TYANN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
HECTOR PEREZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-04143-KAW
SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO PLAINTIFF; ORDER CONTINUING
HEARING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
THE SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT; ORDER CONTINUING
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 45, 48, 56

On July 5, 2017, Defendants Theresa Muley and Linda Uribe (“Federal Defendants”) filed

14

a motion to dismiss Plaintiff Brandon Williams’s second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 45.) On

15

July 7, 2017, Richmond Housing Authority filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 48.) Ms.

16

Williams’s oppositions were due on July 19 and July 21, 2017. On July 26, 2017, the Federal

17

Defendants notified the undersigned that they had been in communication with Ms. Williams, and

18

that she said that she needed additional time to file her opposition, and that they did not object to

19

adjusting the briefing schedule or hearing date to accommodate her. On August 2, 2017, the Court

20

extended Plaintiff’s deadline to serve her oppositions to August 16, 2017. (Dkt. No. 56.) In

21

extending the briefing schedule, Plaintiff was advised that the failure to timely oppose a motion

22

may result in the granting of the motion as unopposed and the dismissal of the case. Id. at 2. To

23

date, Ms. Williams has not filed either opposition nor has she filed any documents with the Court.

24

Accordingly, the Court again continues the hearing date on the motions to dismiss to

25

November 2, 2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 4. The Court further orders Plaintiff to SHOW

26

CAUSE by September 18, 2017, why she did not timely file her oppositions to the motions to

27

dismiss, and why her case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Also by September 18,

28

2017, Plaintiff shall file her oppositions to both motions, which shall be done in separate

1

documents. Defendants’ replies shall be filed on or before September 25, 2017.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely respond to the second order to show cause

2
3

and the motions to dismiss will result in the lawsuit being dismissed without prejudice for failure

4

to prosecute.

5

In opposing the motions to dismiss and in responding to this order to show cause, Plaintiff

6

may wish to make an appointment with the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help Desk—a free service

7

for pro se litigants—by calling [phone]. While the Help Desk does not provide legal

8

representation, Plaintiff may benefit from the assistance of a licensed attorney, and appointments

9

are available at the Oakland Courthouse.
Lastly, the case management conference scheduled for October 17, 2017 is continued to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

December 5, 2017 at 1:30 PM. The parties’ case management statements are due on November 28,

12

2017.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2017
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

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