Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01640-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM C. MENEFEE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1640 DFL GGH PS

vs.

SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

The hearing on the motions to dismiss filed by Solano County and the State of

California was convened as noticed on May 24, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiff did not file an

opposition or statement of nonopposition to the motions, as required by E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-

230(c) (opposition shall be filed with the Clerk of Court and served on the opposing party not

less than 14 days preceding the hearing date). Nor did plaintiff appear at the hearing, which may

be deemed withdrawal of any opposition to the motions or result in the imposition of sanctions,

including dismissal. E. D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(j). However, in deference to plaintiff’s pro se

status, the court will accord plaintiff one additional opportunity to address these matters. See,

e.g., Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (evaluation of pro se litigant’s compliance

with technical rules of civil procedure should be lenient, particularly in civil rights cases).

/ / / /

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 24 Filed 05/31/07 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

2

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause in writing on or before

June 14, 2007, why this case should not be dismissed.

DATED: 5/31/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH5.Menefee1640.osc

Case 2:06-cv-01640-RRB-GGH Document 24 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2