Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01953/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-01953-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE M. MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

MENTAL HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 10-01953 WHA

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND VACATING HEARING

Defendants moved to dismiss this employment discrimination action on June 17, 2010, for

a hearing noticed on August 5. The motion and notice of the hearing date were both served on

pro se plaintiff George M. Mitchell via U.S. mail (Dkt. Nos. 10, 14). Under the 35-day briefing

schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-3, plaintiff was supposed to file an opposition brief to

defendants’ motion to dismiss by July 15. No opposition brief has been filed. Due to this failure,

the hearing on this motion scheduled for August 5 is VACATED. 

Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for failure

to prosecute. A written response to this order — in which plaintiff must explain why he has not

filed a timely opposition brief and set forth reasons why defendants’ motion should not be granted

— must be received by the Court no later than AUGUST 5. Plaintiff is warned that failure to

respond to this order by the deadline will likely result in the immediate dismissal of his case. 

Case 3:10-cv-01953-WHA Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 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

If plaintiff files an opposition brief and provides an adequate explanation for his untimely

filing, a new hearing date may be scheduled if necessary. Otherwise, the motion will be resolved

on the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-01953-WHA Document 15 Filed 07/19/10 Page 2 of 2