Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04351/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04351-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY L. MORRISON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ALBERTO GONZALES and THE FEDERAL

BUREAU OF PRISONS and DOES 1-10,

inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04351 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July 11, 2005, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. On October 25, 2005, this Court received the case

pursuant to a stipulation to transfer the matter to this district. On December 23, 2005,

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and noticed that motion for a hearing on January 27, 2006. 

Pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), Plaintiff’s opposing brief would have

been due on January 6, 2006. No such brief was filed. On January 13, 2006, Defendants filed

their reply brief noting the lack of opposition to the motion. In addition to reiterating arguments

raised in their motion, Defendants also set forth facts which suggested that Plaintiff had not

been diligent in prosecuting this case. 

Thus, on January 13, 2006, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why the case

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff responded on January 18, 2006, and

stated that the failure to file an opposition was due to computer failure and a failure to calendar

the correct filing deadline. (See Docket No. 11.) After considering this response and after

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/22/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1 The Court notes that Defendant has not been entirely blameless, and indeed,

he waited until very near the close of discovery before bringing these disputes to the Court’s

attention.

2

hearing from Plaintiff further at a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the Court imposed monetary

sanctions on Plaintiff’s counsel. (Docket Nos. 17, 26.)

Unfortunately, the Court’s actions did not result in the case progressing without further

incident and in November 2006, Defendant sought relief from the Court and asserted that

Plaintiff had failed to produce documents and respond to interrogatories in a timely fashion.1

(Docket No. 48.) Plaintiff also filed his opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment one day late due to unfamiliarity and problems with the Court’s e-filing system. (See

Docket No. 67, part 17.) In addition, Defendant filed a motion in limine with regard to

evidence submitted by Plaintiff in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment,

and argued that the Court should not consider it because it had not been produced. The Court is

awaiting Plaintiff’s response to that motion. (See Docket 81.) 

This matter is now set for a pretrial conference on June 4, 2007. The parties joint

pretrial filings were due on May 21, 2007. However, the Court has not received any filings

from Plaintiff. Rather, it received Defendant’s separately submitted proposed pretrial order,

motions in limine, proposed voir dire, and proposed jury instructions. In his pretrial Order,

Defendant states that the parties last spoke on May 14, 2007, and there has been no further word

from Plaintiff regarding the preparation of pretrial materials. (See Defendant’s Proposed

Pretrial Order at 2 n.1.) As set forth above, this is not the first instance in which Plaintiff has

failed to comply with a filing deadline.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not

be sanctioned for failure to comply with the Court’s pretrial filing deadlines and procedures. In

light of the history of this case, Plaintiff is HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE that the Court is

considering all possible sanctions, including monetary sanctions, deeming Defendant’s motions 

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/22/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

in limine unopposed, and possible dismissal of this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04351-JSW Document 88 Filed 05/22/07 Page 3 of 3