Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03491/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03491-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

MICHAEL GEARY WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03491-SI 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND CONTINUING 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 

UNTIL OCTOBER 2, 2015

Plaintiff filed this case on August 1, 2014. The case is currently set for a further case 

management conference on September 18, 2015. Pursuant to this Court’s Standing Order 

directing parties to file a joint case management conference statement one week prior to the 

conference, defendants filed a statement on September 10, 2015. Dkt. No. 114.

In their statement, defendants note that plaintiff has not complied with various directives 

from this Court and has failed to meet several discovery deadlines. On February 10, 2015, this 

Court issued an order directing plaintiff to destroy and/or delete all copies in his possession of a 

privileged email and to file a Notice with this Court certifying that he had done so. Dkt. No. 60 at 

2. To date, plaintiff has not filed such a Notice. On June 26, 2015, at the initial case management 

conference, this Court directed plaintiff to serve on defendants copies of plaintiff’s request for 

accommodation as well as this Court’s order on the matter, both filed under seal. Defendants state

that they have not received these documents. Dkt. No. 114 at 5. According to defendants, initial 

disclosures in this case were due on July 7, 2015, and plaintiff’s responses to two written 

discovery requests were due on August 25 and 28, 2015. Id. at 4. Plaintiff has failed to meet 

these deadlines. See id. Finally, defendants have filed a declaration that, during a recent phone 

Case 3:14-cv-03491-SI Document 115 Filed 09/16/15 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

call, plaintiff explained that “he would be unable to proceed with this litigation [and] was unable 

to respond to discovery, unable to participate in a face-to-face meet-and-confer and unable to 

prepare inserts for a joint case management conference statement.” Baker Decl. ¶ 2.

In addition, on June 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice that he intended to file a motion to 

stay this litigation. Dkt. No. 108. No such motion to stay has been filed.

Accordingly, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be 

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff wishes to prosecute this case, he 

must file a statement to this effect in writing no later than September 25, 2015, explaining his 

previous failures to comply with discovery and other requirements and identifying when and 

how his compliance will be provided. If plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss this case 

without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

If the case has not been dismissed, the case management conference currently scheduled 

for September 19, 2015 is hereby CONTINUED to Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2015

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03491-SI Document 115 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2