Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02968/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02968-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

DAVID O. BACA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT 

OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, 

SERGEANT GRIMES, SERGEANT TRUE, 

OFFICER B. RODGERS, OFFICER M. 

WILSON, OFFICER C. RANDALL, 

OFFICER B. JEFFERS, OFFICER B. 

PHILLIPS, and DOES 1-10, 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 13-02968 SBA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE 

DISMISSAL

Plaintiff David O. Baca brings the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the 

State of California and various California Highway Patrol officers. 

The parties were previously ordered to submit a joint statement on or before 

February 17, 2015, regarding the re-referral of the action for settlement. Dkt. 84. On 

February 13, 2015, counsel for Defendants emailed Plaintiff’s counsel to remind him that 

the parties were to file a joint statement requesting or rejecting a further settlement 

conference by February 17, 2015. Dkt. 88 at 1-2 & Ex. A. Plaintiff’s counsel did not 

respond to the email. Id. Accordingly, no joint statement was filed. Id. 

On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order which noted that it had not received 

the joint statement regarding settlement, as previously ordered. Dkt. 87. The Court 

therefore ordered the parties to submit their joint statement within seven days, i.e., by 

March 19, 2015. Dkt. 87. 

Case 3:13-cv-02968-MEJ Document 89 Filed 03/31/15 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 

On March 16, 2015, defense counsel emailed plaintiff’s counsel, again reminding 

him that the parties were to file a joint statement requesting or rejecting a further settlement 

conference by March 19, 2015. Dkt. 88 at 2 & Ex. B. The email also requested that 

plaintiff’s counsel prepare a first draft of the joint statement. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel did not 

respond to the email. Id. In view of Plaintiff’s lack of response, Defendants separately 

filed a statement on March 19, 2015. Id. 

The failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal of this action under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 

Cir. 1992). Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause why the instant action 

should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a Court order. By no 

later than the close of business on April 6, 2015, Plaintiff shall file a Certificate of Counsel 

that sets forth any basis for opposing dismissal under the factors set forth in Ferdik. 

Defendants may file a response to the Certificate on April 9, 2015. THE FAILURE TO 

FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WILL BE DEEMED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS 

TO DISMISS THE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 31, 2015 ______________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:13-cv-02968-MEJ Document 89 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2