Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01313/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01313-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA GRIGGS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

BRUCE McPHERSON, CALIFORNIA )

SECRETARY OF STATE, SUNNE )

WRIGHT McPEAK, SECRETARY OF )

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORPORATIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

1:05-cv-01313-AWI-SMS *

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

LACK OF PROSECUTION

Date: 10/13/06

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: 7 ~ 6 Floor th

Any Response to OSC due: 

10/6/06

This matter came on regularly for a Mandatory Scheduling

Conference on September 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on

the Sixth Floor before the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United

States Magistrate Judge, via court Minutes e-filed May 9, 2006

(Doc. 30). The parties, by and through respective counsel, did not

appear or otherwise contact the court.

__________

* On June 9, 2006, this case was reassigned from the docket of Senior Judge

Coyle (REC) to the docket of Judge Ishii (AWI), thereby changing the case

number/initials to 1:05-cv-01313-AWI-SMS.

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 4
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

A review of the instant action highlights the following:

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on October 18, 2005 (Doc. 1). 

As a result, on October 19, 2005, the court issued its standard

Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference Requiring the Parties

to Confer Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 26(f) for February 1, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. before Judge Snyder (Doc. 4-1). On December 14, 2005,

plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal as to defendants, Bruce

MacPherson and Susan Sunne Wright McPeak (Doc. 7). On December 16,

2005, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against defendant,

Wayne Stumpfer (Doc. 8). On January 26, 2006, plaintiff filed a

Motion to Amend and/or Correct the First Amended Complaint (Doc.

11). As a result, the court issued a Minute Order on January 27,

2006, continuing the Scheduling Conference from February 1, 2006 to

April 18, 2006 (Doc. 16). On February 28, 2006, the court vacated

the motion hearing and took the matter under submission (Doc. 17). 

On March 1, 2006, the court granted said motion and ordered

plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within fifteen (15)

days therefrom (Doc. 18). On March 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a

Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 19). On March 27, 2006, the court

issued a Minute Order continuing the Scheduling Conference from

April 18, 2006 to May 23, 2006, due to the recent service of

defendants (Doc. 23). On April 4, 2006, defendant filed a Motion

to Dismiss set for hearing on May 15, 2006 before Judge Coyle (Doc.

25). As a result, the court issued a Minute Order on May 9, 2006,

continuing the Scheduling Conference from May 23, 2006 to September

6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Snyder due to the pending

dispositive motion (Doc. 30). On May 15, 2006, the court issued

Minutes deeming the dispositive motion submitted (Doc. 31). On May

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 09/11/06 Page 2 of 4
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

30, 2006, the Motion to Dismiss was granted, and plaintiff was

ordered to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days

therefrom, and warning that, “Failure to comply will result in

dismissal of the action.” (Doc. 32). 

It appears that plaintiff has not diligently prosecuted this

case by (1) failing to timely file a Third Amended Complaint, due

by June 30, 2006, as ordered by the court on May 30, 2006 (Doc.

32); and, by (2) failing to appear for the Mandatory Scheduling

Conference on September 6, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Snyder

(Doc. 30) and, in conjunction therewith, by failing to timely

e-file a Joint Scheduling Report in proper preparation therefor,

pursuant to the court’s standard Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling

Conference e-filed on October 9, 2005 (Doc. 4-1).

The court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an

action based on plaintiff’s failure to prosecute diligently. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b); Schwarzer, Tashima & Wagstaffe, Fed. Civ. Proc.

Before Trial ¶ 16:431 (1997). Unreasonable delay by plaintiff is

sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence of actual

prejudice to the defendant (Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp.,

589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978)) since a presumption of injury

arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity

Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consol., Inc., 587 F.2d 27,

29 (9th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff then has the burden of showing

justification for the delay and, in the absence of such showing,

the case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. Nealey v.

Transportation Maritima Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir.

1980).

//

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 09/11/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. That this matter is SET for hearing on October 13, 2006

at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom No. 7 on the Sixth Floor before the

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder, United States Magistrate Judge, for

consideration of dismissal for plaintiff’s lack of prosecution.

2. If plaintiff has any reasons why this action should not

be dismissed, they shall be submitted by sworn declaration of facts

and e-filed by October 6, 2006, to which a supporting memorandum of

law may be appended, to include:

(A) an explanation of the lack of activity in this case;

and,

(B) shall list each specific step plaintiff plans to

take to prepare this case for trial.

Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with and/or

otherwise respond to this order will result in a recommendation to

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01313-AWI -SMS Document 35 Filed 09/11/06 Page 4 of 4