Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02968/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02968-20/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID O. BACA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. JEFFERS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-02968-MEJ 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: 

DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO 

PROSECUTE

On April 14, 2016, the Court set this matter for a Case Management Conference on May 5, 

2016, to be attended by lead trial counsel, and ordered the parties to file a Joint Case Management 

Statement by April 28, 2016, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) and Civil Local

Rule 16-10. Dkt. No. 143. On April 29, 2016, Defendants filed a Separate Case Management 

Statement, indicating Plaintiff’s counsel had not responded to meet and confer efforts. Dkt. No. 

147. Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel appeared at the May 5, 2016 Case Management 

Conference, and Defendants’ counsel indicated he had not been able to communicate with 

Plaintiff’s counsel. Accordingly, on May 5, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why 

sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with court orders. Dkt. No. 148. The Court 

ordered Plaintiff to file a responsive declaration by May 12, 2016 and scheduled a hearing on May 

19, 2016. Id. At the same time, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and thereafter 

file a joint case management statement by May 12, 2016. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff’s 

counsel to initiate the meet and confer by May 9, 2016, and directed Defendants to file a 

declaration if Plaintiff’s counsel failed to initiate the meet and confer. Id. Plaintiff’s counsel 

failed to initiate the meet and confer. See Dkt. No. 150 (Declaration from Rohit Kodical,

Defendants’ counsel). Further, Plaintiff failed to file a response to the Court’s Order to Show 

Case 3:13-cv-02968-MEJ Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 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

Cause, and neither Plaintiff nor his counsel appeared at the May 19, 2016 Order to Show Cause 

hearing.

Based on this procedural background, the Court finds dismissal for failure to prosecute

may be appropriate. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff David O. Baca to show 

cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for 

failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiff shall file a declaration by

June 2, 2016. If a responsive declaration is filed, the Court shall either issue an order based on the 

declaration or conduct a hearing on June 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Notice is hereby provided that failure to file a 

written response will be deemed an admission that Plaintiff does not intend to prosecute, and the 

case will be dismissed without prejudice. Thus, it is imperative that the Court receive a written 

response by the deadline above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2016

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02968-MEJ Document 151 Filed 05/19/16 Page 2 of 2