George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff

C.D. California

George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff

DecidedDecember 7, 2022

Docket5:17-cv-01197

StatusUnknown

This text of George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff (George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff) 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

George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 5:17-cv-01197-JLS-MRW Document 104 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:686 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 17-1197 JLS (MRW) Date December 7, 2022 Title Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OR SANCTIONS

1. This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. The Ninth Circuit remanded a portion of the action to the district court for further proceedings. (Docket # 79, 80.) 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the action was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Wilner for further pretrial proceedings. (Docket # 4, 71.) Following the remand, Judge Wilner ordered each of the parties to file a case management report by mid-November 2022. (Docket # 97.) To date, however, neither side filed such a report. 3. Plaintiff Huffman is an unrepresented litigant. Nevertheless, he is required to follow the rules and orders of this Court like any other party. United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984) (pro se litigant “is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence” as other parties “who are represented by counsel”). Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019). 4. Defendant Sniff’s lawyers are ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to file a required document. L.R. 83-7 5. Each side may discharge the OSC by filing the required case management report plus a declaration (not to exceed three pages) regarding the matter. These submissions will be due by January 13.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

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

Case 5:17-cv-01197-JLS-MRW Document 104 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:686 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 17-1197 JLS (MRW) Date December 7, 2022 Title Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL OR SANCTIONS

1. This is a pro se prisoner civil rights action. The Ninth Circuit remanded a portion of the action to the district court for further proceedings. (Docket # 79, 80.) 2. During the pendency of the appeal, the action was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Wilner for further pretrial proceedings. (Docket # 4, 71.) Following the remand, Judge Wilner ordered each of the parties to file a case management report by mid-November 2022. (Docket # 97.) To date, however, neither side filed such a report. 3. Plaintiff Huffman is an unrepresented litigant. Nevertheless, he is required to follow the rules and orders of this Court like any other party. United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465 (9th Cir. 1984) (pro se litigant “is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence” as other parties “who are represented by counsel”). Plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41; Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019). 4. Defendant Sniff’s lawyers are ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to file a required document. L.R. 83-7 5. Each side may discharge the OSC by filing the required case management report plus a declaration (not to exceed three pages) regarding the matter. These submissions will be due by January 13.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

George D. Huffman v. Riverside County Sheriff Stanley Sniff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-d-huffman-v-riverside-county-sheriff-stanley-sniff-cacd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack