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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

XAVIER TAYLOR,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-04406 MEJ

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

This matter is currently before the Court on a second Order to Show Cause. (Dkt. #58.) As

Plaintiff Xavier Taylor has failed to respond to the order, and he has made no appearances in this

case since a mediation session on October 8, 2009, the Court finds dismissal of the above-captioned

matter with prejudice for the reasons set forth below.

On September 19, 2008, Defendant City and County of San Francisco and Matt Sullivan

removed the above-captioned case to this Court. (Dkt. #1.) On May 21, 2009, the Court referred the

case to court-sponsored mediation. (Dkt. #34.) However, despite repeated attempts by the ADR

Department to conduct a phone conference, Plaintiff failed to provide a telephone number at which

he could be reached. Based on this, and because Plaintiff had made no appearance in the case since

a Case Management Conference before Judge Hamilton on May 14, 2009, the Court ordered

Plaintiff to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure

to comply with the ADR Department’s requests. (Dkt. #37.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a

declaration by July 16, 2009, and scheduled a hearing on July 30, 2009.

On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, stating that he had not

been available due to work commitments and a friend’s passing. (Dkt. #39.) Based on Plaintiff’s

Case 3:08-cv-04406-MEJ Document 60 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 4
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

response, the Court vacated the order to show cause. (Dkt. #40.)

On December 9, 2009, Defendants filed a letter requesting an order compelling Plaintiff to

comply with his discovery obligations. (Dkt. #50.) In response, the Court ordered the parties to

appear for an in-person meet and confer session in the undersigned’s courtroom. (Dkt. #51.) 

Although Defendants’ counsel appeared for the December 29, 2009 meet and confer session,

Plaintiff failed to appear. 

In the meantime, on December 17, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,

with a noticed hearing date of January 21, 2010. (Dkt. #52.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7, any

opposition to Defendant's motion was due by December 31, 2010. Plaintiff failed to file any

opposition. Based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court’s discovery order and his failure to

file an opposition to Defendants’ motion, the Court vacated the summary judgment hearing date and

issued a second order to show cause. (Dkt. #58.) The Court again ordered Plaintiff to show cause

why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court deadlines. The

Court ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration by January 21, 2010, and scheduled an order to show

cause hearing on January 28, 2010. 

On January 28, 2010, the Court held an order to show cause hearing. Plaintiff made no

appearance at the hearing and failed to file a declaration. Based on this procedural history, the Court

finds it appropriate to dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Under

Rule 41(b), failure to comply with a court order can warrant dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260 (9thCir. 1992). In “determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply

with a court order, the district court must weigh five factors including ‘(1) the public’s interest in

expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of

prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and

(5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.’” Id. at 1260-61 (quoting Thompson v. Housing Auth.,

782 F.2d 829, 831 (9thCir. 1986)). Here, Plaintiff has repeatedly failed to comply with his duty to

prosecute his case. Specifically, he has failed to comply with ADR directives, failed to comply with

his discovery obligations, failed to comply with a court order to appear for a meet and confer

Case 3:08-cv-04406-MEJ Document 60 Filed 01/28/10 Page 2 of 4
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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

session, failed to file an opposition to Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion, failed to

respond to the most recent order to show cause, failed to make an appearance at the osc hearing, and

has made no appearance in this matter since a mediation on October 8, 2009. Thus, the Court finds

that the Ferdik factors weigh in favor of dismissal.

Accordingly, the Court hereby DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE for failure to

prosecute. The Clerk of Court shall close the file. Defendants’ summary judgment motion is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2010 _______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-04406-MEJ Document 60 Filed 01/28/10 Page 3 of 4
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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

XAVIER TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Defendant. /

Case Number: 08-04406 MEJ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 28, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Xavier Taylor

131 Embarcadero West, #3326

Oakland, CA 94607 

Dated: January 28, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-04406-MEJ Document 60 Filed 01/28/10 Page 4 of 4