Tillman v. Bostick et al

Filing 38

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 2/12/2014. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

EDDIE TILLMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANTIOCH POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICER )
BOSTICK #4356,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
Clerk: Martha Parker Brown
Reporter: Gina Colin
Length of hearing:

Case No.: 12-CV-02807-LHK
MINUTE ORDER, CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff: No Appearance
Defendant’s Attorney: Noah Blechman

A case management conference was held in this case on February 12, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
Plaintiff did not appear at the conference. At the conference, the Court issued an order to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on June 1, 2012. See ECF No. 1. On December 10, 2012,
Plaintiff filed an “Opposition” to Defendant’s Answer. ECF No. 11. On May 13, 2013, this Court
appointed Haywood S. Gilliam and Jay N. Rapaport of Covington & Burling LLP as pro bono
counsel for Plaintiff. ECF No. 24. On August 2, 2013, Plaintiff’s pro bono counsel filed a motion

27
28

1
Case No.: 12-CV-02807-LHK
MINUTE ORDER, CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

to withdraw. ECF No. 29.1 The Court held a hearing on this motion to withdraw on August 29,

2

2013. ECF No. 30. At the motion hearing, the Court orally granted the motion to withdraw and set

3

a further case management conference for October 30, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. ECF No. 32. The Court

4

also ordered that “Defendant’s counsel shall serve this order on the Litigation Coordinator at San

5

Quentin State Prison. The Litigation Coordinator at San Quentin State Prison shall make Plaintiff

6

available by telephone at 2:00 p.m. on October 30, 2013 to participate in the further case

7

management conference.” Id. The Court further ordered that Plaintiff’s withdrawing pro bono

8

counsel “provide to Plaintiff the Pro Se Handbook available at the Northern District of California’s

9

website.” Id. On September 26, 2013, the Court issued a written order memorializing the hearing.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Id.

11

On October 30, 2013, the Court held a case management conference, at which Plaintiff

12

appeared pro se via telephone. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff indicated that he would shortly be released

13

from prison and that his daughter’s home address, which Plaintiff provided at the hearing, would

14

be his address upon release from prison. Id. The Court ordered Plaintiff to contact the Federal

15

Legal Assistance Self Help Center following his upcoming release from prison, and provided

16

Plaintiff the phone number for the San Francisco FLASH Center. Id. The Court also referred the

17

Plaintiff’s case to the Federal Pro Bono Project. Id. At the conference, Plaintiff agreed to register

18

for ECF following his anticipated release from prison in order to receive future orders and case

19

updates electronically. Id. The Court also set a further case management conference for February

20

12, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. Id. On December 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of change in address from

21

San Quentin State Prison to his daughter’s home address. ECF No. 36.

22

Plaintiff failed to file a Case Management Statement in advance of the February 12, 2014

23

Case Management Conference, as required by Civil Local Rule 16-10(d). As noted above, at the

24

previous Case Management Conference held by this Court on October 30, 2013, Plaintiff agreed to

25
26
27
28

1

In their motion to withdraw, the attorneys noted that after their appointment, they had diligently
worked to prepare Plaintiff’s case and met twice with Plaintiff at San Quentin State Prison, but that a
“serious issue ha[d] arisen in the case,” which the lawyers could not reveal “because of their duty to
maintain confidentiality.” ECF No. 29 at 1.
2

Case No.: 12-CV-02807-LHK
MINUTE ORDER, CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

register for ECF once released from prison in order to receive future orders and provide case

2

updates to the Court electronically. ECF No. 34. Plaintiff has failed to do so.

3

Further, in Defendant’s February 5, 2014 Case Management Conference statement and at

4

the February 12, 2014 Case Management Conference, defense counsel reported that Defendant

5

served a request for production of documents on Plaintiff, but Plaintiff never responded. Defendant

6

sent a meet and confer letter on January 27, 2014, asking Plaintiff again to provide the requested

7

documents by February 5, 2014. Defense counsel reported that Plaintiff did not respond to

8

Defendant’s meet and confer letter. Plaintiff also did not attend the deposition of a witness

9

conducted by Defense counsel. Finally, Plaintiff did not appear at the Case Management

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Conference on February 12, 2014.
The Court hereby orders Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with

12

prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has until February 24, 2014, at noon. to file a response

13

to this Order to Show Cause and to explain why he failed to file a Case Management Conference

14

Statement, failed to attend the Case Management Conference on February 12, 2014, failed to

15

respond to Defendant’s discovery request and meet and confer letter, and failed to attend the

16

deposition of one witness. A hearing on this Order to Show Cause is set for Wednesday, February

17

26, 2014, at 2:00 p.m. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the February 26,

18

2014 hearing will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: February 12, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 12-CV-02807-LHK
MINUTE ORDER, CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE