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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?