Parker v. Spadaro et al

Filing 42

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED. Show Cause Response due by 10/30/2018. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/28/18. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ALFRED W. PARKER,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-01210-HSG (PR)

v.
DEPUTY SPADARO,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED

Defendant.

13
14

On March 8, 2017, plaintiff, at the time an inmate at the Martinez Detention Facility in

15

Contra Costa County, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was

16

referred to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program for early settlement proceedings. On May 7,

17

2018, mail sent to plaintiff by the court was returned to the Clerk of the Court as undeliverable

18

with a notation that plaintiff was not in custody (“NIC”). Dkt. No. 32. On July 17, 2018, the

19

Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 3-11 for

20

plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of his current address. Dkt. No. 35.

21

On August 2, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the action and a notice of change of

22

address, informing the Court that he has been released from custody. Dkt. No. 37. On August 29,

23

208, the Court reopened the action and reinstated the referral to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement

24

Program. Dkt. No. 38. On September 4, 2018, Magistrate Judge Illman, who oversees the

25

settlement program, set a September 11, 2018 date for purposes of scheduling the settlement

26

conference. Dkt. No. 39. The September 11, 2018 minute entry indicates that plaintiff did not

27

appear at the conference. Dkt. No. 40. The matter was set over to September 25, 2018 to allow

28

plaintiff one further opportunity to participate. See id. The September 25, 2018 minute entry

1

indicates that plaintiff again did not appear. Dkt. No. 41. The action was returned to the

2

undersigned. See id.

3

Plaintiff’s refusal to attend the settlement conference must now be addressed.

4

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed

5

for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. Plaintiff must file a written

6

response to this order to show cause no later than October 30, 2018, and his response must be

7

made under penalty of perjury. In his response, plaintiff must explain every reason why he did not

8

attend the settlement conference, and may provide any other information he believes may explain

9

why this action should not be dismissed due to his refusal to attend the settlement conference.
Defendant may submit evidence and argument replying to plaintiff’s response no later than

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

November 14, 2018.

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order may result in the dismissal of this action for
failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 9/28/2018

16
17
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

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