Black et al v. White et al

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed. Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 2/20/2009 at 09:00 AM. Signed by Judge Whyte on 01/26/09. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Joe Black ("Black") brings this lawsuit under a pseudonym, seeking a preliminary injunction and damages. Black's argument is, in brief, that the constitutional right that a woman has to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy also permits a man who would have so chosen to avoid paying child support for his children. Constitutional protection of a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy was first articulated in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Black argues in his complaint that the equal protection clause mandates that Roe's right be afforded to men. Complaint 4. This argument misunderstands the basis for Roe's holding. As the Sixth Circuit wrote in a case directly on point, "The woman's right to abortion is not solely, or even primarily, based upon her right to choose not to be a mother after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. Rather, the right to abortion, as articulated in Roe, derives from the woman's right to bodily integrity and her privacy interest in
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE--No. C-08-04734 RMW JAS

E-FILED on

01/26/09

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOE BLACK, et al. Plaintiff, v. CONNIE WHITE, et al., Defendants.

No. C-08-04734 RMW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

protecting her own physical and mental health." Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422, 430 (6th Cir. 2007). There is thus no basis in the law for Black's equal protection claim. It also appears that Black has not properly served any defendant as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor, apparently, has he paid the required filing fee. On October 28, 2008, the court denied Black's request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered that, unless the $350.00 filing fee was paid by November 26, 2008, the action would be dismissed. Order Re: Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 9). The court thus orders Joe Black to appear at 9:00 a.m. on February 20, 2009 and show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to pay the $350 filing fee.

DATED:

01/26/09

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE--No. C-08-04734 RMW JAS

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been sent to: Joe Black 327 Blossom Valley Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032-3910

Dated:

01/26/09

JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE--No. C-08-04734 RMW JAS

3