Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04976/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04976-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 08:1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petition

---

1

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04976-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARTURO DEVESA VILLANUEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:14-cv-04976-EJD 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 19, 2016, the above-entitled action was reassigned to the undersigned along with a 

report from Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd recommending that this case be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Dkt. No. 12. On that same date, 

Plaintiff’s attorney, Carllene M. Placide, filed a document entitled “Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal.” Dkt. No. 14. In the caption of that document, attorney Placide indicates she is 

admitted in Washington and has been admitted to this district pro hac vice. Further down the 

same document, however, attorney Placide suggests under her signature that an application for pro 

hac vice admission is pending. But despite these representations, the court is unable to confirm

through its records that attorney Placide has been admitted to this district pro hac vice pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 11-3, and is similarly unable to locate a pending application for admission on 

behalf of attorney Placide. Thus, it appears that attorney Placide is not a member of the bar of this 

court as defined by Civil Local Rule 11-1, and has engaged in unauthorized practice in this 

district. 

Accordingly, the court hereby issues an order to show cause (1) why any and all 

appropriate sanctions should not be imposed on attorney Placide for unauthorized practice 

Case 5:14-cv-04976-EJD Document 15 Filed 07/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:14-cv-04976-EJD

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

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

Northern District of California

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-8, and (2) why the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed on July 19, 

2016, should not be stricken because of attorney Placide’s unauthorized practice. If attorney 

Placide does not, by July 25, 2016, file or cause to be filed adequate proof confirming attorney 

Placide’s pro hac vice admission or pending admission, the court will determine an appropriate 

sanction under Civil Local Rule 11-8 and will order the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal stricken. 

No hearing will be held on the order to show cause unless otherwise ordered by the court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04976-EJD Document 15 Filed 07/20/16 Page 2 of 2