Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00763-3/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMAL AUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00763-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 2, 2015, the Court granted in part the motion filed by Defendants County of 

Alameda, Glenn Tafolla and Franz Gonzalez to dismiss pro se Plaintiff Jamal Austin’s complaint. 

Dkt. No. 17. Following a written reminder and an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his second 

amended complaint on August 10. Dkt. Nos. 18, 20.

On August 31, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint 

and noticed a hearing for October 8. Dkt. No. 24. On September 30, Plaintiff filed a letter stating 

that he would be unable to attend the October 8 hearing because he lacked proper identification, 

had “no funds,” and was “under health care provider restrictions.” Dkt. No. 27. Plaintiff also 

claimed he had never received a copy of the July 2 Order. Id. In response, the Court mailed 

Plaintiff a letter allowing him to enter the courthouse without identification, and an additional 

copy of the July 2 Order. Dkt. No. 29. Plaintiff nevertheless failed to appear at the October 8 

hearing.1

 

1

Plaintiff continues to claim that he never received a copy of the July 2 Order. Dkt. No. 33. 

However, Plaintiff admits that he received a copy of the letter allowing him to enter the 

courthouse without identification for the October 8 hearing, id., and a copy of the July 2 Order 

was included in the same envelope as that letter, Dkt. No. 29. The Court therefore does not find 

Plaintiff’s claim that he did not receive a copy of the July 2 Order credible. 

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 34 Filed 10/21/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

At the October 8 hearing, the Court set a case management conference for October 20 and 

mailed Plaintiff another letter allowing him to enter the courthouse without identification. Dkt. 

No. 31. Defendants represent that they attempted to contact Plaintiff in preparation for the case 

management conference, but he was “unreachable and unresponsive to defense counsel’s 

telephone messages.” Dkt. No. 32. Once again, Plaintiff failed to appear at the October 20 case 

management conference.

This case must be dismissed if Plaintiff refuses to participate in the litigation. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed 

for failure to prosecute. On or before October 30, 2015, Plaintiff shall respond to this order in a 

written statement of no more than five pages. Defendants shall file any response by November 6, 

2015. A telephonic hearing on the matter will be held on November 10, 2015, at 3:00 p.m. The 

Court will initiate the telephone call to Plaintiff. Defendants’ counsel shall contact CourtCall at 

(866) 582-6878 to make arrangements for the telephonic appearance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00763-HSG Document 34 Filed 10/21/15 Page 2 of 2