1 FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA —_CW □□□□□ 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 1 | THEODORE MYERS, Case No.: EDCV 19-01182-CJC (KKx) 12 Plaintiff, V ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 14 ° CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED Ee LM □□□ AND 15 || COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CHILD 6 SUPPORT SERVICES COURT RULES DEPARTMENT, CALIFORNIA 17 |} DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY DIVISION OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES, AND LOS 19 || ANGELES COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT SERVICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. 22 23 24 In this case, filed on June 26, 2019, pro se Plaintiff Theodore Myers alleges that 25 || Defendants County of Los Angeles Child Support Services Department, California 26 || Department of Healthcare and Family Division of Child Support Services, and Los 27 || Angeles County Child Support Service Department made him “unwittingly” sign his 28 ||name on “a fraudulent contract” that created “a debt that they can collect on in using

1 court orders to enforce fraudulent debt and interest” —apparently child support. (Dkt 1 2 1.) Before the Court is Defendants’ ex parte application to continue the deadline for 3 || filing motions, the pretrial conference, and trial, because Plaintiff has been non- 4 ||responsive. (Dkt. 30.) Indeed, Defendant states that “Mr. Myers has been absent for the 5 |}entirety of this lawsuit and has not made any Rule 26 disclosures, nor has he responded to 6 || written discovery, and has never responded to counsel herein’s letters or phone messages 7 || since the inception of this lawsuit,” including Defendant’s attempt to meet and confer 8 ||regarding a motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 30 at 4.) 9 10 It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute his case diligently. Even though he is 11 || proceeding pro se, he is responsible for following court rules regarding serving and filing 12 || pretrial documents (including meeting and conferring with opposing counsel regarding 13 || those documents), and complying with deadlines. King v. Atiyeh,

(9th 14 || Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County,

(9th 15 || Cir. 2012) (en banc) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that 16 || govern other litigants.”). It appears that Plaintiff has not been doing so. This is not the 17 || first time Plaintiff has failed to do so, as the Court has previously issued an order to show 18 || cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution. (See Dkt. 21.) The Court once again 19 || ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing by April 29, 2021 why this case should not 20 || be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to follow court rules. Failure to file a 21 || document by that date will result in dismissal of this case. 22 23 || DATED: April 20, 2021 Ko Lo 24 f 7 25 ee HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28