Theodore Myers v. County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department

FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA —_CW □□□□□

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE MYERS, Case No.: EDCV 19-01182-CJC (KKx) Plaintiff,

V ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ° CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Ee LM □□□ AND

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD

SUPPORT SERVICES COURT RULES

DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA } DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE

AND FAMILY DIVISION OF CHILD

SUPPORT SERVICES, AND LOS

ANGELES COUNTY CHILD

SUPPORT SERVICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

In this case, filed on June 26, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Theodore Myers alleges that Defendants County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department, California Department of Healthcare and Family Division of Child Support Services, and Los Angeles County Child Support Service Department made him “unwittingly” sign his name on “a fraudulent contract” that created “a debt that they can collect on in using court orders to enforce fraudulent debt and interest” —apparently child support. (Dkt 1 1.) Before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the deadline for filing motions, the pretrial conference, and trial, because Plaintiff has been non- responsive. (Dkt. 30.) Indeed, Defendant states that “Mr. Myers has been absent for the }entirety of this lawsuit and has not made any Rule 26 disclosures, nor has he responded to written discovery, and has never responded to counsel herein’s letters or phone messages since the inception of this lawsuit,” including Defendant’s attempt to meet and confer regarding a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 30 at 4.)

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute his case diligently. Even though he is proceeding pro se, he is responsible for following court rules regarding serving and filing pretrial documents (including meeting and conferring with opposing counsel regarding those documents), and complying with deadlines. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”). It appears that Plaintiff has not been doing so. This is not the first time Plaintiff has failed to do so, as the Court has previously issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. (See Dkt. 21.) The Court once again ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 29, 2021 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court rules. Failure to file a document by that date will result in dismissal of this case.

DATED: April 20, 2021 Ko Lo f 7 ee

HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE