Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03227/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03227-5/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

DAN HARTMANN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHRISTIAN HANSON, et al.,

Defendant. /

No. C 09-03227 WHA

ORDER REGARDING

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The undersigned has received plaintiff’s filings on January 4, 2010, regarding the pending

orders to show cause. Plaintiff is reminded that two orders to show cause have been issued

against him. The first was issued on December 10, 2009, following plaintiff’s unexplained

absence at a case management conference scheduled for that same day. In that order, plaintiff

was ordered to show cause why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions for failing to

appear at the CMC and why the case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution (Dkt. No.

27). The second order to show cause was issued on December 18, 2009, following plaintiff’s

failure to file any opposition to defendant’s pending motion to dismiss (or alternatively, motion

for summary judgment) (Dkt. No. 26). In the December 18 order, plaintiff was ordered to show

cause why defendant’s motion should not be treated as unopposed and ruled on accordingly. In

light of plaintiff’s January 4 response, plaintiff will be given the opportunity to address both of

these orders to show cause at the hearing on THURSDAY, JANUARY 7, 2010, AT 2 P.M.

Case 3:09-cv-03227-WHA Document 30 Filed 01/05/10 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

The undersigned will delay ruling on defendant’s dispositive motion until plaintiff has had the

opportunity to be heard.

Plaintiff shall not file any amended complaint until — if ever and if allowed — after a

ruling on the pending motion, as to which plaintiff’s counsel completely failed without cause to

respond. At the hearing on Thursday, all counsel shall be allowed to address whether the pending

motion filed by defendant Hanson should be granted without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03227-WHA Document 30 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2