Naggie v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 10

ORDER re: hearing on Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff is ordered to pay sanctions to the Clerk of Court by February 3, 2017. Any written contests to the amount of such sanctions must be filed by January 27, 2017. Furthermore, plaintiff must serve and provide proof of service on defendants by February 3, 2017. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/24/2017. (ygrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2017)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANGELA NAGGIE,

Case No. 16-CV-5767-YGR

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER RE: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

10
11

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ET AL.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
13
14

Plaintiff filed this action on October 6, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 7, 2016, the Court

15

set an initial case management statement for January 9, 2017 and instructed that parties must file a

16

case management statement by January 2, 2017. (Dkt. No. 6.) As of January 4, 2017, plaintiff

17

had not filed a case management statement, nor had she served defendants in this action. Thus, on

18

January 4, 2017, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding plaintiff’s failure to file a

19

case management statement, requiring a submission from plaintiff by January 13, 2017, and

20

setting a hearing for January 20, 2017. (Dkt. No. 9.) On January 19, 2017, due to certain

21

circumstances, the Court continued the hearing from Friday, January 20, 2017 to Monday, January

22

23, 2017. Plaintiff neither filed a submission by January 13, 2017, nor did she appear at the

23

hearing on the Order to Show Cause. The Court later found an email with a time stamp of 8:21

24

a.m. from plaintiff’s counsel asking, remarkably: “[W]hat phone number do I call?”

25

Pursuant to Rule 41(b), a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to

26

prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 633 (1962)

27

(recognizing courts’ inherent authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution); McKeever v. Block, 932

28

F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991) (same). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when the

1

failure to comply is unreasonable. McKeever, 932 F.2d at 797. A district court should afford the

2

litigant prior notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d

3

128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987).

4

Here, the Court warned plaintiff in its Order that it was considering dismissing this lawsuit.

5

Nonetheless, plaintiff failed to respond to the Court’s Order in writing or in person. This lack of

6

response warrants sanctions in the amount of $200.00. Any written contest to the amount of the

7

sanction must be filed by January 27, 2017. Sanctions must be made to the Clerk of the Court by

8

February 3, 2017.

9

Furthermore, plaintiff has yet to serve defendants in this action, past the deadline for her to
do so. The Court will provide one last opportunity to serve the defendants. At a minimum, the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

entity defendants must be served with proof of service filed by February 3, 2017. Failure to do so

12

will result in dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 24, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

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