Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04551/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04551-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL SANTELLANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER TROY JOHNSEN,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 13-4551 NC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE A NOTICE OF INTENT TO

PROSECUTE

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. The court issued an order of service, directing defendant to respond. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and although given an opportunity, plaintiff

did not file an opposition. Nonetheless, after reviewing the record and the relevant

pleadings, on February 5, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s

motion for summary judgment and referred this case to Magistrate Judge Vadas for

settlement proceedings.

On March 31, 2015, Judge Vadas held a scheduling conference but plaintiff failed to

appear. Judge Vadas re-set a second scheduling conference for April 28, 2015. Again,

plaintiff failed to appear. As a result, Judge Vadas removed this case from his calendar, and

returned it to the undersigned judge. 

A review of the docket sheets reveals that plaintiff has not filed any pleading or

otherwise communicated with the court since March 17, 2014. Because of the length of time

since plaintiff’s last communication with the court, and his failure to appear at two

Case 3:13-cv-04551-NC Document 40 Filed 05/04/15 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

scheduling conferences with Judge Vadas, it is unclear whether plaintiff intends to continue

to pursue the claims set forth in federal complaint. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a district court may sua sponte

dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order. See McKeever v.

Block, 932 F.2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1991). But such a dismissal should only be ordered when

the failure to comply is unreasonable. See id. The court should afford the litigant prior

notice of its intention to dismiss. See Malone v. United States Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128,

133 (9th Cir. 1987). 

Accordingly, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency for the court to

establish whether plaintiff intends to continue to prosecute this action. Plaintiff shall file a

notice of his continued intent to prosecute no later than twenty-one (21) days from the filing

date of this order. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04551-NC Document 40 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 2