Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05021/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05021-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

LARRY LITTLEJOHN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-5021 SI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 21, 2009. On November 10, 2009, defendant City and

County of San Francisco filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. (Docket No. 3). The case was then

reassigned to the undersigned judge, and on December 3, 2009 defendant re-noticed the motion to

dismiss. (Docket No. 9). The motion is scheduled for a hearing on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs’

opposition to the motion was due no later than January 15, 2010. Plaintiff, who is represented by

counsel, has not filed an opposition, has not responded to inquiries from the Court’s clerk regarding the

status of the motion to dismiss, and has not taken any action in this case since it was filed.

Accordingly, the Court orders plaintiff to file a declaration by February 5, 2010 stating why this

case should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The February 5, 2010 hearing

on defendant’s motion to dismiss is VACATED. The Court will reschedule the hearing on the motion

if necessary. Failure to comply with these deadlines will result in dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-05021-SI Document 13 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 1