Franklin v. McDonough

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION DAVID M. FRANKLIN, Case No. 21-cv-06328-VKD Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW v. 10 CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 11 DENIS MCDONOUGH, Defendant.

14 The Court held a conference via Zoom webinar on June 7, 2022 to discuss the status of this matter. Dkt. No. 38. Defendant appeared. Plaintiff David Franklin did not. The Court invited the parties in advance of the conference to tell the Court whether they preferred an in-person appearance. Dkt. No. 35. The Court received no response from Mr. Franklin. Nor did he respond to the Court’s attempts to reach him by email during the conference. The Court was also unable to reach Mr. Franklin by telephone, as the phone number he provided to the Court resulted in an automated message stating that the call could not be completed as dialed.

21 At the conference, defense counsel advised that he was able to send an email to Mr. Franklin as recently as May 23, 2022 to discuss continuing the deadline for a settlement conference. However, defense counsel stated that Mr. Franklin last communicated with him by email in February 2022, and that Mr. Franklin did not participate in the scheduling of the settlement conference and has not indicated whether he will participate in the settlement conference Judge van Keulen has scheduled for July 20, 2022. Further, the Court is informed that the Pro Se Program has attempted (unsuccessfully) to contact Mr. Franklin, despite the Court’s settlement conference. See Dkt. No. 33.

2 Mr. Franklin is responsible for prosecuting his action in a timely manner. To the extent any of his contact information may have changed, he is also responsible for keeping the Court and || opposing counsel apprised of his current contact information.! The Court is concerned by Mr. Franklin’s failure to respond to communications from defense counsel, the Pro Se Program, and || the Court, as well as his failure to appear at the court-ordered status conference.

7 The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962). By June 17, 2022, Mr. Franklin shall file a written response to this order explaining why this action 10 should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this case. Additionally, Mr. Franklin shall appear 11 in person on June 21, 2022, 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 2, Fifth Floor of the United States District 12 Court, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California to address the Court’s concerns about his 13 apparent inattention to this action.” If Mr. Franklin fails to respond to this order by the June 17, 2022 14 deadline or to appear at the June 21, 2022 show cause hearing, the Court will dismiss this action 15 without prejudice.

16 Although Mr. Franklin is a e-filer, the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this order to him 17 at the mailing address he provided that is noted on the Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated: June 7, 2022 9 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH United States Magistrate Judge 07 Defense counsel confirmed that he does not have contact information for Mr. Franklin that is different than what is reflected on the Court’s docket.

28 || 2 Defendant is not required to attend the June 21, 2022 hearing.