JORDAN v. ESPINOZA, 14-cv-02113-YGR. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161122987
Visitors: 4
Filed: Nov. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 97 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On September 20, 2016, the Court was informed by defendants that they received notice that plaintiff had been released from custody and paroled to San Francisco Unit 4 on September 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 91.) On September 28, 2016, the Court received notice from plaintiff informing the Court that his current mailing address was 391 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE Re: Dkt. No. 97 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On September 20, 2016, the Court was informed by defendants that they received notice that plaintiff had been released from custody and paroled to San Francisco Unit 4 on September 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 91.) On September 28, 2016, the Court received notice from plaintiff informing the Court that his current mailing address was 391 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California,..
More
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Re: Dkt. No. 97
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On September 20, 2016, the Court was informed by defendants that they received notice that plaintiff had been released from custody and paroled to San Francisco Unit 4 on September 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 91.) On September 28, 2016, the Court received notice from plaintiff informing the Court that his current mailing address was 391 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California, 94102. (Dkt. No. 92.) On October 24, 2016, plaintiff failed to appear at the Case Management Conference set for this action. (Dkt. No. 96.) The Court issued an Order to Show Cause on October 26, 2016 setting a hearing for November 10, 2016 and requiring plaintiff to file a written response explaining his failure to appear at his Case Management Conference. (Dkt. No. 97.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause would result in dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, and failed to appear at the hearing. (Dkt. No. 98.)
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
