Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04726/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-04726-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

MICHAEL GEARY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-04726-JCS 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; AND 

VACATING MAY 6, 2016 MOTION 

HEARING

Plaintiff in this case is proceeding in forma pauperis. Presently before the Court is 

Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, 

which is set for hearing on May 6, 2016. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(b), Plaintiff was 

required to file an Opposition or statement of non-Opposition to that motion by April 15, 2016. 

Plaintiff filed neither. Nor did he appear at the February 12, 2016 Case Management Conference, 

which the Court set after it lifted the stay in this case as to Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. At the 

February 12, 2016 Case Management Conference, the Court also gave Plaintiff thirty days to 

amend his remaining claims to update his allegations as to the alleged violation of his due process 

rights in light of the related proceedings that have occurred in state court. Although Plaintiff was 

served with the Court’s minutes, he did not file an amended complaint. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be 

dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow the Court’s rules and Orders. Plaintiff may 

file a response, not to exceed five pages, by May 2, 2016. Failure to file a response may result 

in dismissal of this action. In addition, the Court vacates the May 6, 2016 motion hearing and 

takes under submission Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Dismiss Second 

Case 3:14-cv-04726-JCS Document 53 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

Northern District of California

Amended Complaint. Because Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to that Motion, Defendants 

need not file a Reply brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-04726-JCS Document 53 Filed 04/19/16 Page 2 of 2