Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00872/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00872-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN J. FRAZIER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-0872-TLN-KJN PS

ORDER AND

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 7, 2016, the assigned district judge referred this action to the undersigned for 

all purposes exclusive of the pretrial conference and trial pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21) in 

light of plaintiffs’ counsel’s withdrawal of representation, leaving all plaintiffs proceeding in this 

action in propria persona. (ECF No. 17.) On April 1, 2016, in light of the district judge’s 

referral and the procedural posture of this action, the undersigned issued an order setting a status 

(pre-trial scheduling) conference in this matter for May 12, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. (ECF No. 18.)

That order directed the parties to file a status report addressing specific topics no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 1-2.) The order also specifically 

cautioned that “[f]ailure to obey the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Rules, or 

an order of this court, may result in dismissal of the action or a judgment of default, monetary 

sanctions, and/or any other appropriate sanctions. Although the court liberally construes the

Case 2:15-cv-00872-TLN-KJN Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 4
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

pleadings and filings of pro se litigants, they are required to abide by all deadlines and procedural 

requirements.” (Id. at 2-3.) No status report was filed by any party by the filing deadline set by 

the April 1, 2016 order. 

The undersigned acknowledges that plaintiffs’ counsel recently withdrew, leaving both 

plaintiffs to proceed pro se in this matter, and that plaintiffs did not receive copies of the court’s 

April 1, 2016 order that were served on them by mail as those copies were returned to the court as 

undeliverable. However, it is plaintiffs’ duty, even as pro se litigants, to keep the court informed 

of their current address(es), and service of the court’s orders at the address on record for both 

plaintiffs was effective absent the filing of a notice of change of address. In relevant part, Local 

Rule 182(f) provides: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to 

notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney 

or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney 

or pro se party shall be fully effective.” Accordingly, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why 

they should not be sanctioned for their failures to file a status report in compliance with the 

court’s April 1, 2016 order and provide timely notification of their current address(es) in 

compliance with Local Rule 182(f).

Notwithstanding plaintiffs’ failures, defendant City of Rancho Cordova has also failed to 

file a status report in compliance with the April 1, 2016 order.1 While the April 1, 2016 order 

directed the parties to file a joint status report and the court is cognizant that defendant may have 

encountered some difficulties in communicating with plaintiffs in light of the withdrawal of 

plaintiffs’ counsel, defendant was still required to file a status report. If defendant was unable to 

confer with plaintiffs prior to the filing deadline despite making good faith efforts to do so, it

should have filed a status report detailing those efforts in addition to addressing the topics set 

forth in the April 1, 2016 order. However, to date, defendant has not filed anything in response to 

 

1 As stated in the prior order, the undersigned is aware that the parties previously filed a joint 

status report in this action on June 19, 2015, that addressed many of the same topics outlined in 

the April 1, 2016 order. However, in light of the fact that many of the representations in that 

prior joint statement are now likely outdated, the undersigned finds an updated filing to be 

necessary.

Case 2:15-cv-00872-TLN-KJN Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 4
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

that order. Accordingly, defendant shall show cause in writing why it should not be sanctioned 

for its failure to file a status report in compliance with the court’s April 1, 2016 order. In 

addition, defendant shall inform the court whether it’s counsel has been in contact with plaintiffs 

in the time since plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew from representation. Furthermore, defendant shall 

inform the court whether it has updated contact information for plaintiffs, including plaintiffs’ 

known addresses and phone numbers. If it does have such information, it shall also serve a copy 

of this order and the April 1, 2016 order on plaintiffs by mail at the addresses known to defendant 

and attach to its response to this order to show cause proof of such service.

In light of the parties’ failures to file a status report and the apparent issues surrounding 

plaintiffs’ contact information, the status (pre-trial scheduling) conference currently set for May 

12, 2016, is continued to June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a status report 

addressing the topics set forth in the court’s April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) by no later than 

June 23, 2016.2

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. By no later than June 2, 2016, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why they should 

not be sanctioned for their failures to file a status report in compliance with the court’s

April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) and provide timely notification of their current 

addresses in compliance with Local Rule 182(f).

2. By no later than June 2, 2016, defendant City of Rancho Cordova shall show cause in 

writing why it should not be sanctioned for its failure to file a status report in 

compliance with the court’s April 1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18). In its response, 

defendant shall inform the court whether it’s counsel has been in contact with 

plaintiffs in the time since plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew from representation and 

whether defendant has updated contact information for plaintiffs, including plaintiffs’ 

 

2

This status report shall preferably be filed jointly after the parties have had an opportunity to 

confer regarding the topics set forth in the April 1, 2016 order. However, if defendant is unable 

to contact plaintiffs after making good faith efforts to do so, it may file its own status report by 

the above deadline that also includes a statement detailing the good faith efforts defendant 

undertook in attempting to contact plaintiffs.

Case 2:15-cv-00872-TLN-KJN Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

known addresses and phone numbers. If defendant has such updated information, it 

shall also serve a copy of this order and the April 1, 2016 order on plaintiffs by mail at 

the addresses known to defendant and attach to its response to this order to show cause 

proof of such service.

3. The May 12, 2016 status (pre-trial scheduling) conference before the undersigned is 

CONTINUED to June 30, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. 

4. The parties shall file a status report addressing the topics set forth in the court’s April 

1, 2016 order (ECF No. 18) by no later than June 23, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016

Case 2:15-cv-00872-TLN-KJN Document 19 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 4