Kellen J. Clarke v. City of Atascadero Police Department

C.D. California

Kellen J. Clarke v. City of Atascadero Police Department

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 9, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-05112·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-5112 ODW (MRW) Date January 9, 2020 Title Clarke v. City of Atascadero

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge Veronica Piper n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner: Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. The Court previously issued an order regarding the Marshals Service’s inability to serve the complaint in this action. (Docket # 11.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit additional information to allow for service of process on the named defendants. 2. Plaintiffs statement was due by December 6. To date, however, the Court has not received any additional information from Plaintiff. As a result, the Court has real doubt about Plaintiffs ability, willingness, or interest in continuing with this lawsuit. 3. As an accommodation to an unrepresented litigant and in the interests of justice, the Court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the previous order. Plaintiff is ordered to file his response to that order and an explanation of his delay in complying with the Court’s order. That submission will be due by January 31. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-5112 ODW (MRW) Date January 9, 2020 Title Clarke v. City of Atascadero

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge Veronica Piper n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff/Petitioner: Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. The Court previously issued an order regarding the Marshals Service’s inability to serve the complaint in this action. (Docket # 11.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to submit additional information to allow for service of process on the named defendants. 2. Plaintiffs statement was due by December 6. To date, however, the Court has not received any additional information from Plaintiff. As a result, the Court has real doubt about Plaintiffs ability, willingness, or interest in continuing with this lawsuit. 3. As an accommodation to an unrepresented litigant and in the interests of justice, the Court will give Plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to the previous order. Plaintiff is ordered to file his response to that order and an explanation of his delay in complying with the Court’s order. That submission will be due by January 31. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

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

Kellen J. Clarke v. City of Atascadero Police Department, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Kellen J. Clarke v. City of Atascadero Police Department (Kellen J. Clarke v. City of Atascadero Police Department) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related