Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 7, 2023
Docket8:22-cv-01824
StatusUnknown

This text of Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi (Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01824-FWS-JDE Document 21 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:105

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 8:22-cv-01824-FWS-JDE Date: February 7, 2023 Title: Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

Plaintiff Bibi Shagoofa (“Plaintiff”) was ordered to file a Notice of Submission by February 3, 2023, indicating that a completed summons, USM-285 form(s), and copies of the Complaint were submitted to the U.S. Marshal’s Service. (Dkt. 20.) As of the date of this Order, the court has received no further filings from Plaintiff and the February 3, 2023, deadline for filing a Notice of Submission has now passed. (See generally Dkt.)

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than February 14, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Link v. Wabash Railroad
370 U.S. 626 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Hiram Ash v. Eugene Cvetkov
739 F.2d 493 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bibi Shagoofa v. Nazir Ahmad Eshaqzi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibi-shagoofa-v-nazir-ahmad-eshaqzi-cacd-2023.