Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00462/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00462-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MALACHI ANTHONY RILEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00462-KJM-AC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants 

removed this matter from Sacramento Superior Court on February 12, 2014. ECF No. 1. On 

August 11, 2014, defendants filed a notice of settlement that stated dispositional documents 

would be filed within forty-five (45) days. ECF No. 20. However, on September 26, 2014, 

plaintiff’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw. ECF No. 23. The court granted that motion on 

January 6, 2015. ECF No. 37. On January 30, 2015, plaintiff (now proceeding in pro per) filed a 

letter disavowing his former counsel’s representation that he had agreed to a settlement. ECF No. 

38. Plaintiff stated that he had no objections to his former attorney’s withdrawal. Id. 

On February 5, 2015, following referral from the district judge, the undersigned set an 

initial scheduling conference for March 11, 2015. ECF No. 39. On March 3, 2015, defendants 

filed a status report claiming that they mailed a copy to plaintiff requesting that he either (1) sign 

and return the report if he approved of it; or (2) contact counsel’s office if he had questions or 

Case 2:14-cv-00462-KJM-AC Document 42 Filed 03/12/15 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 

wanted to make changes. ECF No. 40 at 2. Plaintiff never responded to defendants’ letter, 

despite being informed of the filing deadline for status reports. Id. In addition, plaintiff failed to 

appear at the court’s hearing on March 11, 2015. John Lavra appeared on behalf of defendants. 

Under Local Rule 230(i), a failure to appear may result in the imposition of sanctions absent a 

notice of intent to submit on the briefs. 

Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants. 

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 838 (1995). This means 

that parties appearing in pro per must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 

Rules of this court. Id.; see also Local Rule 183. Moreover, “all litigants, including pro ses, have 

an obligation to comply with court orders.” McDonald v. Head Criminal Court Supervisor 

Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir.1988). 

 Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

 1. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within fourteen (14) days of 

this order, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(b) and E.D. Cal. R. 110. 

 2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this 

action be dismissed for lack of prosecution. 

DATED: March 11, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-00462-KJM-AC Document 42 Filed 03/12/15 Page 2 of 2