Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01089/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01089-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MICHAEL LAWRENCE BOWEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01089-PJH 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

VACATING HEARING

On February 27, 2019, plaintiff Michael Bowen filed a complaint against 

defendants The City of Oakland, Libby Schaaf (Mayor), Joe Devries (Asst. to City 

Administrator), and the Oakland Department of Public Works. Dkt. 1. The complaint 

asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of: (1) the Eighth Amendment to the 

United States Constitution; (2) the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 

(3) the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (4) Cal. Civil Code 

§ 1006. On February 28, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for permission for 

electronic case filing. Dkt. 11.

On April 22, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 20. Plaintiff’s 

opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on May 6, 2019. To date, plaintiff has 

not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be 

dismissed for his failure to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff shall file a 

response to this order by June 5, 2019, explaining his failure to respond to defendants’ 

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff’s response must also be accompanied by his opposition to 

Case 4:19-cv-01089-PJH Document 25 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

defendants’ motion or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order by 

June 5 will result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply 

with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Yourish 

v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

This order should not be taken as an indication that the court will accept plaintiff’s 

late submission. However, if it does, defendants will be provided an opportunity to reply.

The hearing scheduled for June 5, 2019 is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 14, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01089-PJH Document 25 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 2