Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
WILLIAMS v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
January 14, 2003
DEMPSEY LEE WILLIAMS, JR., PLAINTIFF,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ET AL., DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Elizabeth D. Laporte, United States Magistrate Judge.
This action is dismissed for plaintiffs failure to comply with the court orders and failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
On December 9, 2002, the court issued an Order To Show Cause Re. Failure To Prosecute ("OSC") because plaintiff twice failed to participate in the preparation of joint pretrial conference materials and twice failed to file a pretrial conference statement in violation of court orders. The OSC noted that "[p]laintiff's failure to prepare for the pretrial conference appears to be part of a pattern of ignoring his duties in this action." OSC, p. 1. Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response showing cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court's orders. Plaintiff filed a half-page "Motion For Cause" on December 18, 2002 in which he responded to the OSC by stating that the prison mail service was inadequate and that he had in fact filed the pretrial conference statement by the due date. The case is now before the court for consideration of plaintiff's response to the OSC.
Plaintiff's failure to participate in the preparation of joint pretrial conference materials and failure to file a pretrial conference statement by the deadline were not his first missed obligations in this action. In order to understand the nature of the problem and determine the appropriate course of action at this time, the court discusses the various failings of plaintiff throughout the pendency of this case.
Plaintiff repeatedly changed his address and often failed to promptly notify the court and opposing counsel of such address changes, making the management of this case much more difficult. Plaintiff has been in and out of custody frequently, as the following time-line shows:
April 20, 2000 Complaint mailed from S.F. County Jail on Bryant St. in San Francisco.
August 1, 2000 Amended complaint mailed from S.F. County Jail in San Bruno.
Plaintiff did not notify court of this address change.
September 19, 2000 Plaintiff filed notice of change of address to San Quentin State Prison
and asked that mail be sent to him in custody and at his home on Eddy
Street in San Francisco. Plaintiff did not notify court of his release
April 13, 2001 Plaintiff filed notice of change of address to San Quentin State Prison.
April 27, 2001 Plaintiff filed notice of change of address to Eddy Street.
April 10, 2002 Plaintiff was released from custody. Plaintiff had not informed the court
that he had returned to custody earlier and did not inform the court of
this release from custody until his statement at the June 25, 2002 case
April 30, 2002 Plaintiff filed notice of change of address to San Quentin State Prison.
September 20, 2002 Court learns from defendants' pretrial statement that plaintiff had been
rearrested in August 2002. Plaintiff had not notified the court of his
release from San Quentin after April 30, 2002 and had not notified the
court of his return to prison in August 2002.
December 18, 2002 Plaintiff filed notice of change of address to Ed4y Street.
Plaintiff's returns to custody were not due to forces beyond his control but were instead for his parole violations. The problem was not so much the repeated address changes as it was the plaintiff's failure to promptly inform the court and opposing counsel of those changes. The court and opposing counsel repeatedly spent time and effort addressing problems caused by plaintiff's failure to keep the court and opposing counsel informed of his ...
Buy This Entire Record For