Bacca Guerra v. Johnson et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 2/11/2015. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

MILAGROS BACCA GUERRA,
Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

Case No.: 14-CV-04142-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

JEH JOHNSON, et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On September 15, 2014, plaintiff Milagros Bacca Guerra (“Plaintiff”), with the assistance

19

of counsel, filed a complaint in this Court against defendants Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the

20

Department of Homeland Security, James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

21

Leon Rodriguez, Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Robin Barrett,

22

San Francisco District Director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (collectively,

23

“Defendants”). ECF No. 2. Under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff

24

was required to serve Defendants with the summons and complaint by January 13, 2015, which is

25

120 days from the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff has yet to file proof of service.1

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s counsel, a member of the Utah bar, did file a pro hac vice motion on
1

Case No.: 14-CV-04142-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9(a), the parties were required to file a joint case

2

management statement by January 28, 2015, one week prior to the initial case management

3

conference. The parties failed to do so. On January 30, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to file

4

a joint case management statement by February 3, 2015, at noon. ECF No. 6. The parties again

5

failed to do so. The initial case management conference was held on February 4, 2015, and

6

neither party appeared.

7

On February 4, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 7. The Court gave Plaintiff until

9

February 9, 2015, to file a written response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause and scheduled a

10

hearing on that order for February 11, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Id. at 2. The Order to Show Cause put

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Plaintiff on notice that his “failure to respond to this Order and to appear at the February 11, 2015

12

hearing will result in dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. Plaintiff

13

subsequently failed to file any response or appear at the hearing on the Order to Show Cause.

14

Considering that Plaintiff has failed to file proof of service of the complaint and summons,

15

failed to file a case management statement pursuant to the Civil Local Rule, failed to file a case

16

management statement despite the Court’s order, failed to appear at the hearing set for the initial

17

case management conference, failed to respond in any way to the Court’s Order to Show Cause,

18

and failed to appear at the hearing set for that order, the Court hereby DISMISSES WITH

19

PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s case for failure to prosecute.

20
21

The Clerk shall close the case file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: February 11, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

26
27
28

September 15, 2014, ECF No. 1, which the Court granted the following day, ECF No. 4.
2
Case No.: 14-CV-04142-LHK
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE