Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00551/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00551-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Porterville
Defendant
Anthony Luckey
Plaintiff
Bruce Sokoloff
Defendant

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LUCKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00551-BAM

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Anthony Luckey (“Plaintiff”), proceeding with counsel, filed the instant action on 

April 7, 2023. (Doc. 1.) By stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint 

on August 14, 2023, and a Second Amended Complaint on September 6, 2023. (See Docs. 13, 

16, 18, 20.) Defendants City of Porterville and Bruce Sokoloff (collectively “Defendants”) filed a 

motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) on September 27, 2023. (Doc. 21.) 

On September 29, 2023, the then-assigned district judge notified the parties that the 

motion to dismiss would be decided on the papers and that Local Rule 230, as revised March 1, 

2022, would govern the filing of oppositions and replies.1 (Doc. 22.) Local Rule 230(c) requires 

that opposition, if any, to the granting of the motion be filed and served no later than fourteen 

1 The matter recently was reassigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all further proceedings in this 

action, including trial and entry of final judgment, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 30.) 

Case 1:23-cv-00551-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/22/24 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

(14) days after the motion was filed. L.R. 230(c). Local Rule 230(c) provides that the “failure to 

file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.” 

L.R. 230(c). Plaintiff’s opposition or non-opposition to the motion to dismiss was due no later 

than October 11, 2023. No opposition has been filed. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 

RESPONSE within fourteen (14) days of service of this order why the motion to dismiss 

should not be granted and the action dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a 

timely opposition. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ September 27, 2023 motion to dismiss. 

Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1). Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the Court’s order will result in 

dismissal of this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00551-BAM Document 31 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 2