Brinson v. State of California

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BRAD BRINSON, 7 Case No. 25-cv-02381-DMR Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants.

12 Defendants Joshua Hammack and Bay Area Phlebotomy and Laboratory Services filed a motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025. [Docket No. 5.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion was due on March 28, 2025, but no such opposition has been received. Plaintiff Brad Brinson is ordered to respond by April 8, 2025, and show cause for his failure to respond to the motion in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or alternatively to file a statement of nonopposition to the motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3(b). If Brinson intends to oppose the motion, he must also file an opposition brief by April 8, 2025. The court will determine whether to accept the late opposition brief after reviewing the response to the order to show cause.

21 In addition, there are three named Defendants that have not appeared: State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago. The record does not indicate whether Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC) was ever served on these Defendants. The court cannot decide the pending motion without the consent of all parties, served and unserved. See Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503 (9th Cir. 2017). By April 8, 2025, Plaintiff shall file proof of service of the FAC on State of California, California Highway Patrol, and Officer P. Santiago, or shall file a status report on the service of the FAC.

1 If Plaintiff does not respond by April 8, 2025, the court may recommend that Defendants’ motion be granted or that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

4 IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Dated: April 2, 2025 ______________________________________ Donna M. Ryu Chief Magistrate Judge