Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06438/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-06438-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN BROSNAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TRACY AVILDSEN,

Defendant. /

No. C-07-06438 EDL

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN

SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Plaintiff filed his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis on December

21, 2007. On that date, the Court issued an order requiring a case management conference statement

to be filed on March 25, 2008 and setting an initial case management conference for April 1, 2008. 

On January 16, 2008 and February 11, 2008, the Court’s courtroom deputy sent letters to Plaintiff

seeking his decision regarding consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not respond to

the Court’s letters, nor has he responded to telephone calls from the Court’s courtroom deputy. 

Plaintiff did not file a case management conference statement and failed to appear at the case

management conference. Plaintiff did not contact the Court in advance of the conference regarding

his case. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause as to why the Court should not recommend

that this case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). The show cause hearing is scheduled for April 22, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

E, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. 

The Court’s review of Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application reveals some inadequacies

that must be addressed before the Court can rule on it. First, Plaintiff reports that he is not presently

employed, but also reports that his employer is “self.” If Plaintiff receives an income from selfCase 3:07-cv-06438-EDL Document 7 Filed 04/04/08 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

employment, that income must be reported on the application. Second, the application requires

Plaintiff’s signature under penalty of perjury and Plaintiff has not signed the application. If Plaintiff

still wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, he shall file an amended application no later than April 22,

2008. 

Plaintiff shall also determine whether he will consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction or

request reassignment to a district court judge as explained in the Court’s January 16, 2008 and

February 11, 2008 letters. The magistrate judges of this district have been designated to conduct any

and all proceedings in a civil case including a jury or nonjury trial and to order the entry of a final

judgment, upon the consent of all parties. Plaintiff shall select one of the attached forms

documenting his consent or request for reassignment and file it with the Court by April 22, 2008 . 

These forms can also be found on the Court’s website at www.cand.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-06438-EDL Document 7 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 2