Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Karl Wichelman v. County of Sacramento

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 5, 2011

KARL WICHELMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT;
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE;
STARR MCKERSIE; STACY WAGGONER; JOHN OTTER, DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding in propria persona, was referred to the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On September 7, 2011, the undersigned issued an order continuing the initial status (pretrial scheduling) conference in this action to November 2, 2011 due to the parties' failure to timely file status reports as required. Dckt. No. 16. The order also required the parties to show cause, in writing, on or before October 19, 2011, why sanctions should not be imposed for their failures to file status reports, and to file such status reports by October 19, 2011. Id. at 2.

Defendants responded to the order to show cause on September 14, 2011. Dckt. No. 17.

On September 20, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause. Dckt. No. 18. Specifically, plaintiff seeks an "additional 2 weeks of time to file [a] motion for appointment of counsel, and/or answer the order to show cause." Id. at 2. Although plaintiff does not clearly specify why an extension of time is needed, the request will nevertheless be granted.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to respond to the order to show cause, Dckt. No. 18, is granted.

2. The status conference currently set for November 2, 2011, Dckt. No. 16, is continued to November 16, 2011, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 24.

3. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, on or before November 2, 2011, why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file a status report in compliance with the court's May 5, 2011 order.*fn1

4. Also by November 2, 2011, the parties shall file a status report setting forth the matters referenced in the court's May 5, 2011 order.

5. Failure of the parties to comply with this order may result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution and/or for failure to comply with this court's orders and Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.