Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00942/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00942-4/pdf.json

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

---

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMAL AUSTIN, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-00942-EMC 

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; 

AND ORDER VACATING HEARING 

 

On January 21, 2016, the initial case management conference in the above-referenced case 

was held. See Docket No. 49 (minutes). Plaintiff failed to appear. Based on Defendants’ 

representation that Plaintiff had failed to respond to phone calls and correspondence, the Court 

indicated that Defendants could file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and 

noncooperation. The Court noted that, if Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss, then 

the Court would issue an order to show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack 

of prosecution. See Docket No. 49 (minutes). 

On March 11, 2016, Defendants filed and served (by mail) their motion to dismiss for 

failure to prosecute. See Docket No. 51 (Mot. at 1) (asserting that Plaintiff “has failed to meet and 

confer with Defendants regarding early settlement, ADR process selection, and a discovery plan . . 

. [;] failed to file an ADR Certification[;] failed to serve initial disclosures or file a Rule 26(f) 

report[;] failed to file a case management conference statement[;] and failed to appear at the 

[prior] Motion to Dismiss hearing and the Initial Case Management Conference”). As Defendants 

served their motion by mail, Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion was due on March 28, 2016. See

Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (providing that an “opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days 

after the motion was filed”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (providing that, “[w]hen a party may or must act 

Case 3:15-cv-00942-EMC Document 55 Filed 04/19/16 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 

For the Northern District of California 

within a specified time after service and service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), 3 

days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a)”). Plaintiff failed to file an 

opposition by that date. 

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition, the Court shall proceed – at indicated in 

the minute order for the initial case management conference – as follows. Plaintiff is hereby 

ordered to show cause as to why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

Plaintiff’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed and served by May 6, 2016. If 

Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order to show cause by that date, then the Clerk of the 

Court shall automatically dismiss this case, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of the Court shall also close the file in the case. This 

Amended Order to Show Cause is issued since the original OSC was sent to Plaintiff to an 

incorrect address on April 4, 2016. 

In the meantime, the hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, which was set for April 

21, 2016, is hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 19, 2016 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD M. CHEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-00942-EMC Document 55 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2