Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03029/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03029-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

JOSEPH G. MCGILL,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE HOME DEPOT, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03029-KAW 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On January 22, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff Joseph G. McGill’s counsel’s motion to 

withdraw on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to communicate despite counsel’s efforts to reach 

him using various forms of communication since April 2015. (Dkt. No. 32.)

On March 8, 2016, the Court held a case management conference, at which Plaintiff did 

not appear. (See Dkt. No. 35.) On March 11, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause to 

Plaintiff to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and to explain 

why he did not attend the March 8, 2016 case management conference. (Dkt. No. 36.) Therein, 

Court provided Plaintiff with the contact information for the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Help 

Desk, as well as the district court’s manual for pro se litigants, to assist him in representing 

himself. Id. The response deadline was March 31, 2016. Id. On March 21, 2016, pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 11-5(b), the order to show cause was served on Plaintiff via U.S. Mail by his former 

attorney. (Dkt. No. 37.) To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the OSC nor has he filed any 

documents in connection with his case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the involuntary dismissal of an action or 

claim for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. See Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 

(1962) (“authority of a court to dismiss sua sponte for lack of prosecution has generally been 

Case 4:15-cv-03029-KAW Document 39 Filed 04/20/16 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

considered an ‘inherent power’”). Unless otherwise stated, a dismissal under Rule 41(b) “operates 

as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

In light of the foregoing, the case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff’s former counsel shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff at his last known 

address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03029-KAW Document 39 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2