Carter v. Department of Corrections of Santa Clara County et al

Filing 60

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on August 4, 2011. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2011)

1

**E-Filed 8/5/2011**

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

WILLIAM T. CARTER,
Plaintiff,

12
v.

13
14

Case Number 5:09-cv-02413 JF (PSG)
ORDER1 DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK
OF PROSECUTION

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS-SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff William Carter (“Carter”), a former employee of the Santa Clara County

18

Department of Corrections (“the County”), brought the instant action against the County, Chief

19

Edward Flores, and Sheriff Laurie Smith (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants terminated

20

Carter in March 2007 after taking disciplinary action against him on at least two separate

21

occasions. Subsequently, Carter asserted claims for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights

22

Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and related state laws.

23

On July 6, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings,

24

with leave to amend. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting

25

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings With Leave to Amend, Dkt. 46. In that

26

order, the Court gave Carter explicit direction as to how he might amend his complaint to assert

27
28

1

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

Case No. 5:09-cv-02413 JF (PSG)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
(JFLC1)

1

cognizable claims. Id. In lieu of filing an amended complaint, Carter filed an amended motion

2

for summary judgment. Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt 49. At a case

3

management conference held on October 15, 2010, Carter explained that the motion was

4

intended to serve as his amended complaint.2

5

Defendants moved to dismiss and Carter failed to file timely opposition.3 However,

6

Carter did appear at oral argument. He represented that his medical condition prevented him

7

from filing within the time allotted by the Civil Local Rules, and he indicated that he would be

8

able to provide supporting documentation. Subsequently, Carter submitted a letter from Dr.

9

Cecile Lee confirming that Carter is receiving treatment at the Department of Veterans Affairs

10

Outpatient Clinic (“VA Clinic”) in Oakland, California. Amended Briefing, Dkt. 59. The letter

11

indicated that Carter received treatment on February 3, 2011; February 18, 2011; and March 25,

12

2011, and would continue to receive treatment on a regular basis. Id.

13

However, nothing in Dr. Lee’s letter or Carter’s other submissions explains why Carter

14

was unable to file timely opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Carter obviously was not

15

receiving treatment on a daily basis, and it appears that he had ample time between visits either

16

to file opposition or to seek a continuance pending the resolution of his treatment. Accordingly,

17

the action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

18
19

ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant case be DISMISSED WITHOUT

20

PREJUDICE for lack of prosecution. All scheduled dates in this matter are VACATED, and all

21

pending motions are TERMINATED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
DATED: August 4, 2011
24
25

__________________________________
JEREMY FOGEL
United States District Judge

26
2

27

The motion thus is Carter’s operative pleading.

3

28

Carter did file opposition papers after oral argument, but those papers did not explain
the delay. See Response to Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 58.
2
Case No. 5:09-cv-02413 JF (PSG)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
(JFLC1)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

WILLIAM T. CARTER,

8

Case Number 5:09-cv-02413 JF (PSG)
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

9
10
11

v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS-SANTA
CLARA COUNTY, et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee of the Office of the Clerk,
United States District Court, Northern District of California.
On August 5, 2011, I served a true and correct copy of the attached document to each of
the persons hereinafter listed by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope and depositing
said envelope in the United States mail, or by placing said envelope in the outgoing mail
delivery receptacle located in the Clerk’s Office:

20

22

William Carter
6955 Foothill Blvd. #100
Oakland, CA 94605

23

DATED: August 5, 2011

21

For the Court
Richard W. Weiking, Clerk

24

By:
/s/
Diana Munz
Courtroom Deputy Clerk

25
26
27
28
3

Case No. 5:09-cv-02413 JF (PSG)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION
(JFLC1)