Acosta et al v. City of Salinas

Filing 93

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Re: Dkt. No. 1 . Plaintiffs have until 5/11/2016, to show cause why judgment should not be entered against them. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 4/29/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
RITA ACOSTA, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.
CITY OF SALINAS,
Defendant.

14

Case No. 15-cv-05415 NC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 1

15
16

This case is about a group of homeless individuals’ effort to stop the City of Salinas

17

from conducting cleanup sweeps of a homeless encampment in its Chinatown

18

neighborhood. Because Plaintiffs’ complaint has been rendered moot and Plaintiffs have

19

missed the deadlines for filing an amended complaint, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show

20

cause why their complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice and the case closed.

21

Plaintiffs have until May 11, 2016, to show cause why judgment should not be entered

22

against them.

23

Plaintiffs’ original complaint, filed on November 24, 2015, seeks to enjoin the City

24

of Salinas from implementing city ordinance number 2564, which Plaintiffs allege

25

authorizes the City to seize, store, and destroy “personal property belonging to homeless

26

individuals living without shelter in the City of Salinas.” Dkt. No. 1 at 8.

27
28

However, Judge Koh denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction against
Ordinance 2564 as moot in light of the City’s action replacing Ordinance 2564 with
Case No. 15-cv-05415 NC

1

Ordinance 2567. Dkt. No. 45 at 6.

2

Plaintiffs were instructed to provide to the City a proposed amended complaint by

3

April 7, 2016. Dkt. 53 at 2. The City had until April 14, 2016, to respond to Plaintiffs as

4

to whether Defendant would stipulate to the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed amended

5

complaint. If Defendant declined to so stipulate, Plaintiffs were required file a motion for

6

leave to amend the complaint by April 21, 2016. In its last order denying Plaintiffs’ fourth

7

motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court stated, “Plaintiffs have until April 21,

8

2016, to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint, but they are warned that they must

9

either show that they provided the City a proposed amended complaint by April 7, 2016, or
show good cause to amend given their apparent failure to follow the procedure for the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

parties to agree on an amended complaint.” Dkt. No. 91 at 15. Plaintiffs failed to file any

12

motion or amended complaint by April 21. Dkt. No. 82 at 3.

13

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are now ordered to show cause by May 11, 2016, why their

14

complaint, which seeks to enjoin the implementation of a city ordinance that is no longer

15

operative, should not be dismissed with prejudice.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: April 29, 2016

20

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 15-cv-05415 NC

2