Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01013/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01013-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LUCKETT,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-04-1013 MEJ

ORDER TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

ORDER FOR CLERK OF COURT TO

CLOSE FILE.

On March 21, 2005, counsel for plaintiff Robert Luckett ("Plaintiff") filed his Motion to Withdraw

as Counsel. On May 5, 2005, ruling from the bench, Judge Maria-Elena James granted counsel for

Plaintiff's motion, under the condition that any papers may still be served on Plaintiff's counsel for

forwarding purposes only. By letter dated June 1, 2005, defendants City of Oakland, et al. (collectively

"Defendants") stated that they were unable to locate Plaintiff. Further, the letter stated that the Oakland

Police Department believed Plaintiff to be in state custody. In addition, Defendants claim that they have

been unable to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Court's pretrial order.

In response to Defendants' letter, on June 2, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause

("OSC") why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The hearing on the OSC was

scheduled for June 23, 2005. Plaintiff failed to appear at this hearing. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to file a

declaration as Ordered by the Court. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file a declaration and/or to appear

for the hearing would result in dismissal of his case. 

By letter dated June 27, 2005, former Plaintiff's counsel, Ben Nisembaum, stated that Plaintiff was

made aware of the June 23, 2005 OSC hearing date. Docket doc.#22. Plaintiff informed Mr.

Case 3:04-cv-01013-MEJ Document 23 Filed 07/08/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Nisembaum's office that he did not have an address or telephone contact information. Docket doc. #2. As

there are no means of communicating with Plaintiff, Defendants cannot proceed with their preparations for

trial. 

For these reasons, the above captioned case is hereby DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure

to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), which provides:

For failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court, a

defendant may move for dismissal of an action or any claim against the defendant. Unless the

court in its order for dismissal otherwise specifies, a dismissal under this subdivision and any

dismissal not provided for in this rule, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for

improper venue, or for failure to join a party under Rule 19, operates as an adjudication upon

the merits. 

While Rule 41(b) allows a defendant to move for dismissal for failure to prosecute, the Rule does

not abrogate the power of a district court to dismiss a case on its own motion: "The authority of a court to

dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been considered an 'inherent power,' governed not

by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve

the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-631

(1962). 

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2005

 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-01013-MEJ Document 23 Filed 07/08/05 Page 2 of 2