Filed: Aug. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 84 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against deputy sheriffs for the County of San Mateo. On July 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff's alleged failure to prosecute his action. (Dkt. No. 84.) Plaintiff's response to defendants' m
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 84 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against deputy sheriffs for the County of San Mateo. On July 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff's alleged failure to prosecute his action. (Dkt. No. 84.) Plaintiff's response to defendants' mo..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: FAILURE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 84
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
Plaintiff Antonio Cortez Buckley, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action against deputy sheriffs for the County of San Mateo. On July 29, 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) based on plaintiff's alleged failure to prosecute his action. (Dkt. No. 84.) Plaintiff's response to defendants' motion was due on or before August 12, 2016, and, as of the date of this Order, plaintiff has not yet filed any response thereto. As a result, the Court is considering construing plaintiff's failure to respond as a concession that the motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) should be granted. Said otherwise, the Court is considering granting defendants' motion insofar as they request dismissal of plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to meet deadlines and keep the lawsuit moving forward.
Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. No later than September 2, 2016, plaintiff shall file either (1) a response to defendants' motion, or (2) a written response to this Order to Show Cause, indicating why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to file will be deemed an admission that plaintiff does not intend to prosecute and his case will be dismissed without prejudice.
In light of his pro se status, plaintiff may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center, a free service of the Volunteer Legal Services Program, by calling 415.782.8982 or signing up for an appointment on the 4th Floor of the Oakland Courthouse, Room 470S. At the Legal Help Center, plaintiff may speak with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation. The Court also urges plaintiff to obtain a copy of the Pro Se Handbook, available free of charge from the Court's website (www.cand.uscourts.gov) or in the Clerk's Office.
Accordingly, the hearing currently set for September 6, 2016 is hereby VACATED. Should plaintiff respond to defendants' motion, defendants shall file a reply within five (5) business days thereafter. A hearing will be set if deemed necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
