Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00249/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00249-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:1334 Bankruptcy Appeal

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN KEITH ZINNEL,

Appellant,

v.

SUSAN K. SMITH,

Appellee.

No. 2:12-cv-249-TLN

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Appellee Susan K. Smith (“Appellee”) has filed a motion to dismiss the above-captioned 

action, for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 34.) The Court notes the following background.

On January 30, 2012, Appellant Steven Zinnel (“Appellant”) filed an appeal in this Court

(ECF No. 1, the “Appeal”) from a January 20, 2012, order entered in Bankruptcy Case No. 05-

18800-C-7; that order granted the trustee’s motion for reconsideration and granted Appellee’s 

motion for a protective order excusing Appellee from responding to Appellant’s discovery 

requests. (ECF No. 34 ¶ 1; ECF No. 17 at 2.)

Appellant’s opening brief, Appellee’s opening brief, and Appellant’s reply brief were filed 

in May, 2012. (ECF Nos. 12, 17, 19.) Subsequently, on March 28, 2013, the Court stayed the 

Appeal pending resolution of Appellee’s criminal proceedings in this Court, Case No. 11-cr0234-TLN. (ECF No. 31.) 

Appellant was convicted in the criminal matter on July 16, 2013, and was sentenced to 

Case 2:12-cv-00249-TLN Document 36 Filed 03/19/15 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

212 months of imprisonment on March 4, 2014. (No. 11-cr-0234, ECF Nos. 219, 321.) 

Subsequent to his conviction, Appellant has made no further filings in this case. On August 5, 

2014, Appellee filed the instant motion to dismiss, based on Appellant’s failure to prosecute the 

case, which Appellant has not opposed. (ECF No. 34.) 

Appellant is hereby ordered to show cause why Appellee’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

34) should not be granted. Appellant may also file a statement of non-opposition, or generally 

clarify his intent to litigate this case. A filing made by Appellant pursuant to this Order should 

respond to Appellee’s assertions (ECF No. 34 ¶ 17) that the relief requested is now moot. 

Appellant is directed to make such a filing within 30 days of service of this Order.

Dated: March 18, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-00249-TLN Document 36 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 2