Morris et al v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department et al
Filing
41
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Robert N. Block: Accordingly, on or before December 1, 2008, plaintiffs are ORDERED to show good cause, if any they have, why they failed to timely file a First Amended Complaint in compliance with the District Judges Order and why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and/or failure to prosecute. Plaintiffs shall attempt to show such good cause by filing declarations under penalty of perjury, accompanied by a First A mended Complaint that remedies the deficiencies discussed in the Report and Recommendation with respect to their federal civil rights claims against the County. The Court admonishes plaintiffs that their failure to timely file declarations responsive to this Order to Show Cause accompanied by their First Amended Complaint will be deemed by the Court as another violation of a Court order and as further evidence of their lack of prosecution, and will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this action be dismissed on those grounds. (rla)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 On October 9, 2008, the assigned District Judge issued an Order, pursuant to 19 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing from this action 20 defendants Los Angeles County Probation Department, Los Angeles Department of 21 Children and Family Services, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and their 22 respective agency heads (i.e., Chief Probation Officer Robert Taylor, Director Patricia 23 S. Ploen, and Sheriff Leroy D. Baca); granting without leave to amend the Motion of 24 defendant Los Angeles County Unified School District ("LAUSD") to dismiss all of 25 plaintiffs' alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Individuals with Disabilities 26 Education Act ("IDEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 27 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Rehabilitation Act") against LAUSD and LAUSD 28 Superintendent David Brewer, III ("Brewer") and dismissing from this action 1 REGINALD MORRIS AND PHILLIP MORRIS, vs. Plaintiffs, ) Case No. CV 08-4012-JFW (RNB) ) ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et. al., Defendants.
1 defendants LAUSD and Brewer; granting with leave to amend the Motion of 2 defendant Los Angeles County ("the County") to dismiss all of plaintiffs' alleged 3 federal civil rights claims against the County; granting without leave to amend the 4 County's Motion to Dismiss all of plaintiffs' alleged claims under the IDEA, the 5 ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims against the County; denying plaintiffs' request 6 for leave to amend the Complaint to add County CEO William Fukioko as a 7 defendant; and dismissing without leave to amend plaintiff Reginald Morris's claim 8 seeking equitable relief from the child support judgment entered against him. Further, 9 the District Judge ordered plaintiffs to file a First Amended Complaint within thirty 10 (30) days remedying the deficiencies discussed in the Report and Recommendation 11 with respect to their federal civil rights claims against the County. 12 Plaintiffs' deadline to file a First Amended Complaint has now elapsed, and no 13 First Amended Complaint has been filed by plaintiffs. Nor have plaintiffs sought a 14 further extension of time to do so. 15 Accordingly, on or before December 1, 2008, plaintiffs are ORDERED to show 16 good cause, if any they have, why they failed to timely file a First Amended 17 Complaint in compliance with the District Judge's Order and why this action should 18 not be dismissed for failure to comply with a Court order and/or failure to prosecute. 19 Plaintiffs shall attempt to show such good cause by filing declarations under penalty 20 of perjury, accompanied by a First Amended Complaint that remedies the deficiencies 21 discussed in the Report and Recommendation with respect to their federal civil rights 22 claims against the County. 23 The Court admonishes plaintiffs that their failure to timely file declarations 24 responsive to this Order to Show Cause accompanied by their First Amended 25 Complaint will be deemed by the Court as another violation of a Court order and as 26 further evidence of their lack of prosecution, and will result in a recommendation to 27 the District Judge that this action be dismissed on those grounds. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 1388, 8 L. Ed. 2
1 2d 734, reh'g denied, 371 U.S. 873, 83 S. Ct. 115, 9 L. Ed. 2d 112 (1962); Carey v. 2 King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). 3 4 DATED: November 13, 2008 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ___________________________________ ROBERT N. BLOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
