VAN DUSEN v. CITY OF OAKLAND, 13-cv-05023-VC. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20140919750
Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge. The plaintiff was ordered to file a brief by September 15, 2014, addressing the question whether all or part of her lawsuit should be dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Doc. No. 137. As of the date of this Order, the plaintiff has not filed this brief (or any other document). Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file her brief within seven days of this Order, or the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant
Summary: ORDER VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge. The plaintiff was ordered to file a brief by September 15, 2014, addressing the question whether all or part of her lawsuit should be dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Doc. No. 137. As of the date of this Order, the plaintiff has not filed this brief (or any other document). Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file her brief within seven days of this Order, or the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant ..
More
ORDER
VINCE CHHABRIA, District Judge.
The plaintiff was ordered to file a brief by September 15, 2014, addressing the question whether all or part of her lawsuit should be dismissed under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). See Doc. No. 137. As of the date of this Order, the plaintiff has not filed this brief (or any other document). Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file her brief within seven days of this Order, or the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
