Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05544/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05544-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Berkeley
Defendant
Andzej Paczynski
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ANDZEJ PACZYNSKI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF BERKELEY, and DOES 1–100,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05544 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Defendant noticed a motion to dismiss in this action scheduled for hearing on July 29,

2010. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, any brief in opposition to the motion was due on July

8, 2010, but no opposition was received. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, was ordered to

show cause by July 29, 2010, for his failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil

Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternately to file statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by

Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). The order warned that if plaintiff failed to respond to the order to

show cause, “this matter shall likely be dismissed for failure to prosecute” (Dkt. No. 28). Yet

again, the deadline has passed and plaintiff has not provided a response.

As described, plaintiff has repeatedly failed to respond in a timely manner. Due to his 

Case 3:09-cv-05544-WHA Document 29 Filed 08/03/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

failure to prosecute, this action shall be DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Judgment

shall be entered.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05544-WHA Document 29 Filed 08/03/10 Page 2 of 2