Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00417/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00417-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

ELIZABETH MORA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00417-JSC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND 

VACATE CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mora and Hector Ortega (“Plaintiffs”) bring this negligence and 

medical negligence action against the United States (“Defendant”) under the Federal Tort Claims 

Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346, 2671-2680, arising out of their misdiagnosis of gonorrhea at 

the Brookside Community Health Center. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 11, 2015, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended 

complaint within 30 days. (Dkt. No. 24.) That deadline was extended several times by stipulation 

of the parties because Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew due to an ethical conflict and Plaintiffs were 

searching for substitute counsel. (See Dkt. Nos. 26, 28, 30.) Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ amended 

complaint was due by August 27, 2015. (Dkt. No. 30.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs, 

now proceeding pro se (Dkt. Nos. 36, 37), still have not filed an amended complaint. The parties’ 

mediation deadline was vacated because Plaintiffs could not move forward with discovery 

necessary for fruitful mediation without counsel. (Dkt. No. 32.) Though Plaintiffs are now 

proceeding pro se, they have not sought to reset the mediation deadline. Further, a case 

management conference is scheduled for October 1, 2015. Defendant filed an individual case 

management statement stating that Plaintiffs had failed to respond to their attempts to obtain their 

input in completing a joint report and requesting that the Court close this case. (Dkt. No. 38.)

Case 3:15-cv-00417-JSC Document 39 Filed 09/30/15 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

Rule 41 accords a district court discretion to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his 

failure to prosecute, to comply with any order of the court, or to comply with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2008); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal of a pro se lawsuit

where the plaintiff failed to comply with the court’s order to file an amended pleading), cert. 

denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992); see also Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273-74 (9th Cir. 1992) 

(noting that the district court may dismiss sua sponte for failure to meet a court deadline). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be 

dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Plaintiffs shall file a written 

response to this Order by October 15, 2015. In particular, Plaintiffs must explain their failure to 

file an amended complaint by the deadline and their failure to submit a joint case management 

conference statement. Plaintiffs must also file an amended complaint by that date. Plaintiffs are 

warned that a failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action for failure 

to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The case management conference previously scheduled for October 1, 2015 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00417-JSC Document 39 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 2