Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Best v. Sonoma County Sheriffs Department, 19-cv-02252-YGR. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20190927b06 Visitors: 17
Filed: Sep. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT Re: Dkt. No. 34 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On September 5, 2019, defendant Sonoma County Sheriffs Department ("SCSD") filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). (Dkt. Nos. 34.) The hearing on the motion i
More

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 34

On September 5, 2019, defendant Sonoma County Sheriffs Department ("SCSD") filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e). (Dkt. Nos. 34.) The hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for October 15, 2019. (Dkt. No. 22.)

Under this Court's Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff was required to file either an opposition to the motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement, or a notice that plaintiff does not oppose the motion. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a), (b). Plaintiff's responses to the motion filed by SCSD was due on September 19, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 9, 11.) As of the date of this Order, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition nor a notice of non-opposition. This is the second time that plaintiff has failed to timely respond to motions filed by SCSD. (See Dkt. No. 24.) As a result, the Court is considering dismissing plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to prosecute.

The Court hereby extends plaintiff's time to file his response. Plaintiff shall file an opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss (or a statement of non-opposition) by no later than Friday, October 11, 2019. Failure to file a response by that date will result in dismissal of this lawsuit for failure to prosecute. Any reply to plaintiff's responses must be filed not more than 7 days thereafter.

The Court further VACATES the hearings currently set for October 15, 2019. After briefing is complete, the Court may reset a hearing date if necessary.

Again, the Court advises plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available in the Clerk's office or through the Court's website, http://cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se.

Assistance is available through the Legal Help Center. Parties can make an appointment to speak with an attorney who can provide basic legal information and assistance. The Help Center does not see people on a "drop-in" basis, and will not be able to represent parties in their cases. There is no charge for this service. To make an appointment with the Legal Help Center, you may: (1) sign up in person on the appointment book outside the Legal Help Center offices at the San Francisco Courthouse, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, San Francisco, California or the Oakland Courthouse, located at 1301 Clay Street, 4th Floor, Room 470S, Oakland, California; (2) call 415-782-8982; or (3) email federalprobonoproject@sfbar.org. The Help Center's website is available at https://cand.uscourts.gov/legal-help.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer