Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06429/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06429-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIWANNA K. CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

D’ARCY BUSH,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 16-06429 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND

TRO DISSOLVED FOR FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE

On November 3, 2016, the Court received the Notice of Removal of Civil Action, removing

this action from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to this Court by Defendant.

Defendant contends the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California has certified

that D’Arcy Bush was acting within the course and scope of his employment with the United States

Postal Office at all times material to the alleged incidents giving rise to the civil harassment claim

made by Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se. Accordingly, the United States was automatically

substituted for defendant D’Arcy Bush pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1). 

From its review of the record, the Court determined that prior to removal, on September 26,

2016, upon receipt of a request from Plaintiff, the Superior Court issued a temporary restraining

order (“TRO”) against defendant Bush ordering Bush to stay at least three yards away from Plaintiff

and Plaintiff’s home, car, and three children, their school and day care. (Notice of Removal, ¶ 3, Ex.

2.) The TRO was set to expire on October 17, 2016. (Id.) On October 17, 2016, the Superior Court

issued an order continuing the hearing date to November 7, 2016, based on the fact that Bush had 

Case 4:16-cv-06429-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

not been served. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. 3.) The TRO was set to remain in place until that date. (Id.) On

October 28, 2016, Bush filed a response to the request for the civil harassment restraining order,

disputing its terms and denying the conduct alleged. (Id. at ¶ 5, Ex. 4.) On October 31, 2016,

Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Bush was served on October 23, 2016. (Id. at ¶ 6,

Ex. 5.) On October 25, 2016, the United States Attorney’s Office received notice of this pending

action from the United States Postal Service and thereafter removed.

On November 4, 2016, this Court issued an order requiring in-person service to Plaintiff and

continuing the TRO to expire at the conclusion of a hearing by this Court and set such hearing for

December 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. The Court advised Plaintiff to seek information from the Legal

Help Center.

On November 10, 2016, the Court received a motion filed by Defendant to dismiss the action

for lack of jurisdiction and to dissolve the TRO. A response from Plaintiff was due no later than

November 28, 2016. The Court has received no response. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not

be dismissed. If Plaintiff seeks to file an untimely opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and

to dissolve the TRO, she must submit a request showing good cause for her failure to file an

opposition within the time required by the Local Rules and shall submit a proposed opposition brief

with any such request. Plaintiff’s response to this Order to Show Cause shall be due by no later than

December 9, 2016. If Plaintiff responds, Defendant shall have until December 13, 2016 to file its

reply. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this Order by December 9, 2016, the Court shall dismiss

this case without prejudice for failure to prosecute and shall dissolve the TRO and vacate the hearing

on the TRO currently set for December 16, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

The Court again ADVISES Plaintiff that a Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which contains

helpful information about proceeding without an attorney, is available through the Court’s website

or in the Clerk’s office. The Court also advises Plaintiff that he also may wish to seek assistance

from the Legal Help Center. Plaintiff may call the Legal Help Center at (415) 782-8982 or sign up

at the United States District Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Room 470S, for a

Case 4:16-cv-06429-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

free appointment with an attorney who may be able to provide basic legal help, but not legal

representation. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2016 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-06429-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:16-cv-06429-JSW Document 10 Filed 12/02/16 Page 4 of 4