Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01129/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01129-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE FELIX ORTIZ LEON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF MERCED, a municipal

Corporation; MERCED POLICE

DEPARTMENT OFFICER BRYAN

SAELEE, Individually; MERCED 

POLICE DEPARTMENT CHIEF NORM

ANDRADE, in his Official 

Capacity; and DOES 1 THROUGH 

50, Jointly and Severally;

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-01129-GEB-SAB

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL 

SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE

The August 11, 2014, Order Setting Status (Pretrial 

Scheduling) Conference scheduled a status conference in this case 

on November 10, 2014, and required the parties to file a joint 

status report no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the 

scheduling conference. The August 11, 2014 Order further required

a status report be filed regardless of whether a joint report 

could be procured. No status report was filed as ordered.

Therefore, Plaintiff is Ordered to Show Cause (“OSC”) 

in a writing to be filed no later than November 14, 2014, why 

sanctions should not be imposed against him and/or his counsel 

under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for 

Case 1:14-cv-01129-GEB-SAB Document 18 Filed 11/06/14 Page 1 of 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

2

failure to file a timely status report. The written response 

shall also state whether Plaintiff or his counsel is at fault, 

and whether a hearing is requested on the OSC.1 If a hearing is 

requested, it will be held on January 26, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., 

just prior to the status conference, which is rescheduled to that 

date and time. A joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2014

 

1 “If the fault lies with the attorney, that is where the impact of 

sanction should be lodged. If the fault lies with the clients, that is where 

the impact of the sanction should be lodged.” In re Sanction of Baker, 744 

F.2d 1438, 1442 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1014 (1985). 

Sometimes the faults of attorneys, and their consequences, are visited upon 

clients. Myers v. Shekter (In re Hill), 775 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1985).

Case 1:14-cv-01129-GEB-SAB Document 18 Filed 11/06/14 Page 2 of 2