Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01662/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01662-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

(continued...)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL WITKIN,

2:05-cv-1662-MCE-DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COUNTY of SACRAMENTO, the

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF LOU

BLANAS, the CITY of ELK GROVE

and SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SHERIFF’S DEPUTY ROBERT BARNES

in his official capacity and

DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present action, Plaintiff Michael Witkin alleges

Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County Sheriff’s

Department, Sheriff Lou Blanas, City of Elk Grove, and Deputy

Sheriff Robert Barnes (“Defendants”) violated his civil rights

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as under California law.1

Case 2:05-cv-01662-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 12/12/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(...continued) 1

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

On December 23, 2005, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court granted that Motion in part and

permitted Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. 

Despite the Court granting Plaintiff permission, he elected not

to timely file any amendment and, on June 30, 2006, Defendants

answered Plaintiff’s surviving claims. On February 28, 2006,

this Court issued a Pretrial (Status) Scheduling Order (“PTSO”). 

Therein, the Court directed the Parties to complete discovery not

later than April 9, 2007. As of December 1, 2006, Plaintiff has

failed to serve his Rule 26 disclosure on Defendants. Through

the present Motion, Defendants seek an order amending the PTSO to

extend discovery in light of Plaintiff’s failure to serve his

required disclosures.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:05-cv-01662-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 12/12/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) authorizes 2

dismissal on a motion by the defendants, the United States

Supreme Court in Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., held that “the

authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of

prosecution has generally been considered an ‘inherent power.’”

370 U.S. 626, 631 (1962).

3

The Court hereby denies Defendant’s Motion to Amend the

PTSO. Rather, Counsel for Plaintiff is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why

this matter should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to

prosecute. Plaintiff is to submit a brief establishing cause 2

for his failure to serve his Rule 26 disclosure to this Court not

longer than ten (10) pages in length and not later than ten (10)

days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01662-MCE -DAD Document 25 Filed 12/12/06 Page 3 of 3