Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01234/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01234-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Beardsley School District, Paul Miller and David Hilton removed this case to this Court on 

August 19, 2016. (Doc. 1) Ms. Hooker joined in the removal. Id. at 2. The notice of removal did not 

provide any evidence that any of the defendants filed responsive pleadings in the Kern County Superior 

Court and review of that docket verifies that this has not happened.

1

Despite that the original complaint was served on the defendants in July 2016, no defendant has 

filed a responsive pleading. Moreover, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in this Court on 

 

1

The court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose 

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th 

Cir. 1993). The record of state court proceeding is a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial 

notice may be taken of court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. 

Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. 

Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 

1980). Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the docket in Kern County Superior Court case number BCV-16-101355.

J.A. A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS 

GUARDIAN AD LITEM, JOSEPH 

ETIENNE, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

BEARDSLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01234 DAD JLT 

ORDER TO THE PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE 

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 

FOR THEIR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIS 

ACTION AND SEEK DEFAULT AGAINST THE 

DEFENDANTS

ORDER TO THE DEFENDANTS TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO FILE A 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

Case 1:16-cv-01234-DAD-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/01/16 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

September 23, 2016 but, once again, no defendant has filed a responsive pleading to this filing either. 

Finally, despite the apparent default by the defendants, the plaintiffs have not sought entry of default. 

Due to these failures, it is apparent the Court will not be able to conduct the scheduling conference 

currently set on November 21, 2016. (Doc. 1) Therefore, the Court ORDERS:

1. The scheduling conference is CONTINUED to December 21, 2016;

2. No later than November 22, 2016, the plaintiffs SHALL show cause in writing why 

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to prosecute this action including seeking the entry of 

default;

3. No later than November 22, 2016, the defendants SHALL show cause in writing why 

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to file a responsive pleading. Alternatively, within 

this same timeframe, they may file a responsive pleading.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01234-DAD-JLT Document 4 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 2