Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01745/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01745-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EL CAM BEY; NOBLE BERNIS EARL 

McGILL EL-BEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONNA LINDER; KRISTEN DePAUL; 

and CITY OF MODESTO,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1745 TLN DB PS

ORDER

Plaintiff El Cam Bey is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore,

referred to the undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

(ECF No. 29.) On November 27, 2019, defendants Kristen DePaul and Donna Linder filed a 

motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 17.) The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on 

January 24, 2020. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c) plaintiff was to file an opposition or a statement 

of non-opposition to defendants’ motion “not less than fourteen (14) days preceding the noticed . .

. hearing date.” Plaintiff, however, has failed to file a timely opposition or statement of nonopposition. 

The failure of a party to comply with the Local Rules or any order of the court “may be 

grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 

Case 2:19-cv-01745-TLN-DB Document 22 Filed 01/17/20 Page 1 of 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

2

within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. Any individual representing himself or 

herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, and

all applicable law. Local Rule 183(a). Failure to comply with applicable rules and law may be 

grounds for dismissal or any other sanction appropriate under the Local Rules. Id.

In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, and in the interests of justice, the court will provide 

plaintiff with an opportunity to show good cause for plaintiff’s conduct along with a final 

opportunity to oppose defendants’ motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff show cause in writing within fourteen days of the date of this order as to why 

this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution;

2. The January 24, 2020 hearing of defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 17) is 

continued to Friday, February 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., at the United States District Court, 501 I

Street, Sacramento, California, in Courtroom No. 27, before the undersigned; 

3. On or before February 7, 2020, plaintiff shall file an opposition or statement of nonopposition to defendants’ motion1

; and 

4. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to timely comply with this order may result in the 

recommendation that this case be dismissed.

DATED: January 17, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 1

 Alternatively, if plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this civil action, plaintiff may comply with 

this order by filing a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:19-cv-01745-TLN-DB Document 22 Filed 01/17/20 Page 2 of 2