Martin v. Redwood City Library

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01988

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Case Management Conference continued to 11/3/2015 at 01:30 PM. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 07/20/2015. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/20/2015: # {{1}} Certificate/Proof of Service)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 YOHONIA MARTIN, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01988-KAW Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 9 SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR REDWOOD CITY LIBRARY, FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 10 Defendant. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Yohania Martin ("Plaintiff"), who proceeds pro se, commenced the above-captioned case 14 on May 1, 2015. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma 15 pauperis. (Pl.'s IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.) She has consented to the undersigned's jurisdiction 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Pl.'s Consent, Dkt. No. 3.) 17 On May 14, 2015, the Court granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis and 18 dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (May 14, 2015 Order, Dkt. No. 5.) In the order, the 19 Court instructed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. (Id.) As of the filing of 20 this order, Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, though she has filed a number of other 21 documents. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 8 (notice of need for ADR phone conference), Dkt. No. 9 (notice 22 of need for mediation), Dkt. No. 10 (ADR certification of discussion of ADR options), Dkt. No. 23 11 (stipulation and proposed order selecting ADR process), Dkt. No. 12 (subpoena to produce 24 documents), Dkt. No. 13 (certificate of service), Dkt. No. 14 (certificate of service), Dkt. No. 15 25 (notice of lawsuit and request to waive service of summons). 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 27 claim due to a plaintiff's failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 28 (1962) ("authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 1 considered an 'inherent power'"). As Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint as required by 2 the Court's May 14 Order, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed 3 for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a written response to this order with 14 days. The 4 Court may dismiss this action if Plaintiff fails to file a written response. 5 The case management conference currently set for August 4, 2015 is CONTINUED to 6 November 3, 2015. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: 07/20/2015 __________________________________ 9 KANDIS A. WESTMORE 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2