Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01603-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER WHITE, ZERITA 

WHITE, G’SHELLE WHITE AND 

DANTRELL STEVENS, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-1603 JAM KJN PS (TEMP) 

ORDER 

 On October 16, 2015, this matter came before the previously assigned Magistrate Judge 

for a Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference.1 There was no appearance by or on behalf of 

plaintiff Dantrell Stevens. (Dkt. No. 36.) On April 12, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss 

plaintiff Dantrell Stevens from this action for a lack of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 38.) That motion 

is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 19, 2016. Plaintiff Dantrell Stevens, 

however, has not filed a statement of opposition or non-opposition. 

 Pursuant to the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, opposition, if any, to the granting of a motion “shall be in writing and shall 

be filed and served not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed (or continued) hearing 

 

1

 On November 6, 2015, this matter was reassigned from the previously assigned Magistrate 

Judge to the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 37.) 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

date.” Local Rule 230(c). “No party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a motion at oral 

arguments if opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that party.” Id. Failure of a 

party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may be grounds for imposition by 

the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of 

the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney 

is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law. Local 

Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be grounds for dismissal or 

any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id. 

 Here, plaintiff Dantrell Stevens has failed to comply with Local Rule 230. In light of 

plaintiff’s pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide plaintiff with an 

opportunity to show good cause for his conduct along with a final opportunity to oppose 

defendants’ motion. 

 Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

 1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, plaintiff Dantrell Stevens shall show 

cause in writing as to why plaintiff Dantrell Stevens should not be dismissed from this action for 

a lack of prosecution.2

 Failure to timely file the required writing will result in a recommendation 

that plaintiff Dantrell Stevens be dismissed from this action. 

 2. The May 19, 2016 hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 38) is vacated. 

Dated: May 13, 2016 

 

2

 Alternatively, if plaintiff Dantrell Stevens no longer wishes to pursue this civil action he may 

comply with this order by filing a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

BVD\white1603.osc.dlop.ord.docx 

Case 2:14-cv-01603-JAM-DB Document 42 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 3