Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05900/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05900-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL NICANOR,

Plaintiff, No. C 02-5900 PJH 

v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

RON SANTOS,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Plaintiff filed the complaint in this case on December 23, 2002. After the case was

reassigned to the undersigned judge, a case management conference was scheduled for May

1, 2003. Plaintiff did not appear and an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE was issued. While the

official file has beenarchived and is unavailable for consultation, it appears from the docket that

plaintiff appeared at the hearing on the order to show cause, as the order was discharged and

plaintiff was given thirty additional days to perfect service onthe defendants. The docket further

reflects thatthe summons was returned executed on all three defendants on June 23, 2003. On

July 7, 2003 two of the defendants, KenKoenenand the Alameda County Superior Court, were

voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff.

Nothing else happened in this case untilSeptember 2, 2005, when it was discovered that

the case had been inadvertently closed upon the dismissal of two of the three defendants. A

further case management conference was scheduled for October 6, 2005, and the notice was

mailed to plaintiff’s address ofrecord as well as to a post office box thatappeared onearlier filed

documents. The notice to his official address was returned undeliverable; the notice to the post

office box was not returned. The only remaining defendant, Ron Santos, appeared through his

counselas ordered at the October 6, 2005 case management conference,and advised the court

that proper service has never been made on him. Plaintiff did not appear.
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

On October 7, 2005, the court issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, noting that

notwithstanding the court’s inadvertent premature closing of this case, plaintiff has taken no

actions to prosecute this matter, nor has he apprised the court or opposing counselofanychange

of address as required byCiv. L.R. 3-11. Plaintiff was ordered to showcause whyhis complaint

should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute,for failure to serve and for failure to notify the

court and opposing counsel of his change of address, and hearing on this order to show cause

was scheduled for November 3, 2005,at 2:30 p.m. Plaintiff was warned that a failure to appear

at that hearing would result in the dismissal of his case. Again, the notice to plaintiff's official

address was returned undeliverable; the notice to the post office box was not returned. Plaintiff

failed to appear at the November 3, 2005 conference.

The court having considered the five factors set forth in Malone v. United States Postal

Service,833F.2d128,130 (9th Cir. 1987), and having determinedthatnotwithstanding the public

policy favoring the disposition of actions on their merits, the court's need to manage its docket

and the publicinterestinthe expeditious resolutionof the litigationrequire dismissalof this action.

In view of plaintiff's lack of response to this court's prior orders, the court finds there is no

appropriate less drastic sanction. Accordingly, this action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. pro. 41(b) for plaintiff's failure to prosecute.

IT SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2005

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge