Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04336/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-04336-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAFAYETTE S JAMERSON et al,

Plaintiffs,

v

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-01-4336 VRW

ORDER

Pursuant to the court’s order following the February 8,

2005, case management conference, Doc #31 (minutes), defendant City

and County of San Francisco filed a motion for summary judgment,

Doc #33, noticed for hearing on May 26, 2005. Pursuant to Civ L R

7-3(a), plaintiffs were to file their oppositions not later than

May 5, 2005. Plaintiffs filed no oppositions and the court issued

an order to show cause why defendant’s motion for summary judgment

should not be treated as unopposed. Doc #35.

Plaintiffs each proceed pro se. Only plaintiff Lafayette

Jamerson (“Jamerson”) responded to the court’s order to show cause;

he cites a variety of extenuating circumstances to excuse his

Case 3:01-cv-04336-VRW Document 37 Filed 05/24/05 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

failure to oppose defendant’s motion in a timely fashion. Doc #36. 

In light of the strong policy favoring the resolution of litigation

on the merits, the order to show cause is DISCHARGED and the court

will extend the time to oppose defendant’s motion. Although

Jamerson was the only plaintiff to respond to the court’s order to

show cause -- despite the court’s admonition that plaintiffs

proceeding pro se must each respond -- the court will, in the

interest of uniformity, extend the time for all plaintiffs to

respond to defendant’s motion. The court admonishes plaintiffs

that, as Jamerson is not an attorney and cannot represent them,

plaintiffs must each personally sign any papers filed with the

court. See Civ L R 3-9(a).

Accordingly, the order to show cause (Doc #35) is

DISCHARGED and the court sets the following schedule: Plaintiffs

shall file their oppositions to defendant’s motion for summary

judgment on or before June 9, 2005. Defendant may file a reply on

or before June 23, 2005, upon which the matter will be deemed

submitted and the court will issue a decision on the papers without

a hearing. Failure to file an opposition will result in

defendant’s motion being treated as unopposed. No further

extensions of time will be forthcoming.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:01-cv-04336-VRW Document 37 Filed 05/24/05 Page 2 of 2