Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01182/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01182-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1 According to the Court’s ECF system, the Order and Judgment were posted

shortly before 11:00 a.m. Plaintiff filed his response to the Order to Show Cause at

approximately 2:30 p.m.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUDGE PATRICK J. MAHONEY, et al.

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01182 JSW

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO

SHOW CAUSE

On June 2, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff, directing him to

show cause why Defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted as unopposed. Plaintiff’s

response to this Order to Show Cause was due by no later than June 9, 2010, and the Court

noted that if Plaintiff failed to submit a timely response to this Order to Show Cause, the Court

would vacate the hearing set for June 18, 2010 and would resolve Defendants’ motion to

dismiss on the papers. Plaintiff did not file a timely response to the Order to Show Cause. 

Accordingly, the Court vacated the hearing and, on June 18, 2010, the Court issued an Order, in

which it granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with

prejudice. The Court also entered judgment on that date. 

After the Court issued the Order and Judgment1

, Plaintiff filed his Response to the Order

to Show Cause and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss. In response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff explains that he was out

of the country between April 24, 2010 and June 14, 2010. Plaintiff also contends that

Case 3:10-cv-01182-JSW Document 44 Filed 06/22/10 Page 1 of 3
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 The Court is troubled by Plaintiff’s representations that Defendants’ counsel

was aware of the reasons why he was unavailable for a hearing until June 18, 2010. As the

Court issued briefing schedules and an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff regarding his failure

to respond, if Defendants’ counsel was aware that Plaintiff was out of the country, the Court

expects, and hopes, that Defendants’ counsel would have acted responsibly and courteously

by alerting the Court to Plaintiff’s unavailability.

2

Defendants’ counsel was aware of that fact. Plaintiff further asserts that he did not receive

notice of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, their renewed administrative motion to continue the

hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, or the Court’s Order granting the

administrative motion, which confirmed that the parties’ briefs on Defendants’ motion to

dismiss were due in accordance with the Local Rules, until after he returned.

Although the parties continued the hearing on Judge Mahoney’s motion to dismiss from

June 11, 2010 to June 18, 2010, there was nothing in the record to alert the Court to the fact that

the reason Plaintiff was unavailable for that hearing date was due to a six week European

vacation. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute his case. Thus, it would have been prudent

for him to alert the Court to that fact, especially given the flurry of filings that preceded his

departure.2

Plaintiff also responds to the merits Defendants’ motion to dismiss his amended

complaint. However, the arguments he raises are arguments that he raised in the briefs he filed

in opposition to Judge Mahoney’s original motion to dismiss and in the amended complaint. 

When it ruled on his motion to dismiss, the Court considered and rejected those arguments. 

Accordingly, having considered the arguments raised in the Response to the Order to Show

Cause, the Court finds no basis revisit its ruling on the motion to dismiss or to vacate the

judgment. However, the Court shall issue an amended order on the motion to dismiss, to reflect

the fact that it considered the arguments raised in the Plaintiff’s most recent filing, and shall

issue an amended judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June 22, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01182-JSW Document 44 Filed 06/22/10 Page 2 of 3
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

ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PATRICK J. MAHONEY et al,

Defendant.

 /

Case Number: CV10-01182 JSW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on June 22, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office

delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Archibald Cunningham

1489 McAllister St.

San Francisco, CA 94115

Dated: June 22, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:10-cv-01182-JSW Document 44 Filed 06/22/10 Page 3 of 3