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.

Jaclyn Cornelia Wilhite v. City of Bakersfield

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


March 6, 2012

JACLYN CORNELIA WILHITE,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER TO SETTING TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION AND TO SHOW CAUSE AND VACATING APRIL 23, 2012 HEARING DATE

On January 30, 2012, the Court granted various motions to dismiss and dismissed all but one claim (a Fourth Amendment claim against Deputy Maxwell). See Doc. No. 52. Some of the claims and some of the Defendants were dismissed without leave to amend, while others were dismissed with leave to amend. See id. The Court gave Plaintiff thirty (30) days in which to file an amended complaint that was consistent with the analysis of the Court's order. See id. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

On March 5, 2012, the "Bakersfield Defendants" filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution under Rule 41(b). See Doc. No. 55. The Bakersfield Defendants argue that all claims against them were dismissed, Plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended complaint, but she has not done so. See id. The Bakersfield Defendants argue that Plaintiff's failure to follow the Court's order should result in dismissal of the Bakersfield Defendants from this case since the active complaint contains no valid causes of action against them. See id.

On March 6, 2012, the County Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b). The County Defendants make many of the same arguments as the Bakersfield Defendants. Additionally, the County Defendants argue that dismissal of Deputies Singa and Maxwell is appropriate under Rule 4(m).

The hearing on the two Rule 41(b) motions to dismiss is set for April 23, 2012. Given the nature of the motions and the Court's prior dismissal order, the Court will vacate the hearing and order a response from Plaintiff. If Plaintiff does not respond by the date set by the Court, leave to amend will be withdrawn and the respective Defendants will be dismissed from this case.*fn1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall respond to the Bakersfield Defendants' and the County Defendants' respective Rule 41(b) motions to dismiss on or by 10:00 a.m. on March 19, 2012;

3. Defendants may file a reply on or by 10:00 a.m. on March 26, 2012;

4. The April 23, 2012, hearing date is VACATED at this time;*fn2 and

5. If Plaintiff does not file a response by 10:00 a.m. on March 19, 2012, the Court will issue an order without further notice that resolves Defendants' respective motions and that will dismiss the appropriate Defendants from this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


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.