Ewers v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 19

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/19/17. Show Cause Response due by 5/30/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/19/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES D
D
DISTRICT C
COURT

5

NORTHER DISTRIC OF CALI
RN
CT
IFORNIA

6
7

ALTURA ST. MICHAEL EWERS,
A
L
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 1
17-cv-00592
2-JSW
ORDER T SHOW C
TO
CAUSE WH CASE
HY
SHOULD NOT BE D
DISMISSED FOR
D
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
E

v.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
C
F
FR
RANCISCO et al.,
O,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants
s.
12
13
14
15

ase
duled for a case manage
c
ement confer
rence on Ma 19, 2017, at 11:00
ay
This ca was sched
a.m Plaintiff did not appear for that he
m.
d
earing, and t Court co
the
ontinued the matter to Ju 9, 2017.
une
This is not the first time Plaintiff has failed to appear fo a schedule proceedin On May
d
or
ed
ng.
y

16

16, 2017, Plain did not appear for a scheduled A
,
ntiff
a
ADR telecon
nference. (Se Dkt. No. 17.)
ee

17

Pla
aintiff also did not file a case manage
ement statem
ment.

18

Plaintif is HEREBY ORDERE TO SHO CAUSE why the Cou should no dismiss
ff
ED
OW
urt
ot

19

this case for fai
s
ilure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Pl
F
laintiff’s resp
ponse to this Order to
s

20

Sho Cause sh be due by May 30, 2017. If Plai
ow
hall
b
2
intiff fails to file a timely response b that date,
o
y
by

21

the Court shall dismiss this case pursua to Rule 4
e
s
ant
41(b), and Pl
laintiff is her
reby advised that such a
d

22

dis
smissal will “operate[] as an adjudica
“
s
ation on the merits.” Fe R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ed.

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: May 19 2017
9,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge