Weese-Heft v. U.S. Government et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; NOTICE OF IMMINENT DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/18/2015. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

DEANNA RAE PORTER WEESE-HEFT,

Case No. 15-cv-02659-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; NOTICE
OF IMMINENT DISMISSAL

9
10

U.S. GOVERNMENT, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

To Plaintiff Deanna Rae Porter Weese-Heft, you are hereby ORDERED to SHOW

14

CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice for violation of this Court’s

15

September 21, 2015 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend. ECF 12. The Order

16

required Plaintiff to file any amended pleading by October 12, 2015. Id. Plaintiff did not amend

17

her complaint within the time provided and still has not amended it.

18

Failure to amend a complaint is considered a failure to comply with a Court order and is

19

grounds for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

20

See Yourish v. Calif. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999).

21

Further, Plaintiff filed her complaint on June 12, 2015, see ECF 1, and there is no evidence

22

in the Court records that Plaintiff has served the United States, the DOJ, or the FBI (“Defendants”)

23

with the summons and complaint. An unreasonable delay in service is considered a failure to

24

prosecute and is also grounds for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of

25

Civil Procedure 41(b). See Bowling v. Hasbro, Inc., 403 F.3d 1373, 1375-77 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

26

(applying the law of the Ninth Circuit).

27
28

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause on or before January 21, 2016
why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order and

1

for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff does not respond, the Court will dismiss the action with

2

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) without further notice.

3

In the alternative, if Plaintiff files an amended complaint on or before January 21, 2016,

4

the Court will dissolve the order to show cause. Should Plaintiff choose to amend the complaint,

5

the Court advises Plaintiff that a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim

6

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and must plead “enough facts

7

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,

8

570 (2007).

9

Plaintiff may wish to contact the Federal Pro Se Program, a free program that offers
limited legal services and advice to parties who are representing themselves. The Federal Pro Se

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Program has offices in two locations, listed below. Help is provided by appointment and on a

12

drop-in basis. Parties may make appointments by calling the program’s staff attorney, Mr. Kevin

13

Knestrick, at 408-297-1480. Additional information regarding the Federal Pro Se Program is

14

available at http://cand.uscourts.gov/helpcentersj.

15
16
17
18
19

Federal Pro Se Program
United States Courthouse
280 South 1st Street
2nd Floor, Room 2070
San Jose, CA 95113
Monday to Thursday 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

Federal Pro Se Program
The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
152 North 3rd Street
3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95112
Monday to Thursday 9:00 am – 12:00 pm
Fridays by appointment only

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: December 18, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2