Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02958/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-02958-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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 

Case No. 14-cv-02958 NC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

WILLIAM LEON MAROTZ, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN 

FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

POLICE CHIEF GREG SUHR, 

COMMANDER ROBERT O’SULLIVAN, 

POLICE OFFICERS (864)(552)(1732)(165) 

(2323) (1013), TONEY GREETY, PERRY, 

YAMAMOTO, AND SAN FRANCISCO 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-02958 NC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED

On December 11, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss pro se plaintiff William 

Marotz’s first amended complaint. Dkt. No. 30. Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) requires parties to 

file and serve an opposition within fourteen days after a motion is filed. In the alternative, a 

party who does not oppose the motion must file a statement of nonopposition with the Court 

within fourteen days. Civ. L.R. 7-3(b). Where, as in this case, the motion was not served 

through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system, see Dkt. No. 30 at 11, these 

deadlines are extended by 3 days. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Accordingly, Marotz’s response to 

defendants’ motion was due by December 29, 2014. Marotz has not filed a response. 

“Failure to follow a district court’s local rules is a proper ground for dismissal.” Ghazali v. 

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Marotz has until January 14, 2015, to 

Case 3:14-cv-02958-JD Document 32 Filed 01/07/15 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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Case No

ORDER

oppose d

cause w

dismissa

 IT

D

. 14-cv-0295

R TO SHOW

defendants’

hy this acti

al of this ca

T IS SO OR

ate: January

58 NC 

 CAUSE 

’ motion to 

on should n

ase with prej

RDERED. 

y 7, 2015 

 

dismiss (or

not be dism

judice. 

 

 2 

r file a state

issed. Mar

 ____ Nath

Unit

ement of no

rotz’s failur

__________ hanael M. C

ted States M

onopposition

re to respon

__________ Cousins 

Magistrate J

n) and to sh

nd will resul

____ 

Judge 

how 

lt in 

Case 3:14-cv-02958-JD Document 32 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 2