Opinion
Case No. 17-cv-05012-WHO
04-20-2018
WE 2 CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 11, 16, 20, 24, 26
Plaintiff William Warren filed this pro se civil action on his own behalf and on behalf of We 2 Corp. on August 29, 2017. Dkt. No. 1. Since filing this action, Warren has failed to sufficiently comply with multiple Orders from this court. For instance, although the Clerk issued the summons on September 1, 2017, Warren failed to serve defendants within 90 days and failed to appear at the Case Management Conference on November 30, 2017. Dkt. No. 7. As a result, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) as to why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute based on Warren's failure to serve the defendants and failure to appear at the Case Management Conference. Dkt. No. 8. Warren was ordered to show cause in writing. He did not file a written response to the OSC, but he filed proof of service of the summons and complaint on some of the defendants on December 11, 2017. Dkt. Nos. 9 & 10.
The City and County of San Francisco and Kathleen McCann subsequently filed separate motions to dismiss. Dkt. Nos. 11, 16. Warren did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to these motions. Judge Corley then issued another OSC, directing Warren to show cause as why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and directing him to file his opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motions to dismiss by February 13, 2018. Dkt. No. 19. Warren did not comply with the OSC. Upon this failure, Judge Corley issued a Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2018, recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute based on Warren's failure to appear at a Case Management Conference on November 30, 2017, failure to respond to the Order to Show Cause by February 13, 2018, and failure to respond to the pending motions to dismiss. Dkt. No. 20. On February 28, Warren seemingly objected to adoption of the Report and Recommendation. But he subsequently failed to respond to the pending motions to dismiss (Dkt. Nos. 24, 26) by the due date of his replies, March 19 and April 3, respectfully.
On April 3, 2018, I issued an OSC, ordering Warren to show cause as to why I should not adopt Judge Corley's Report and Recommendation. I ordered that Warren show cause in writing and respond to the pending motions to dismiss by April 16, 2018. Further, I noted that We 2 Corp. must obtain counsel in order to proceed with this action. See Civ. L.R. 3-9(b) ("A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only through a member of the bar of this Court.").
Seemingly in response to the OSC, on April 16, 2018, Augustus Moye, the purported founder of We 2 Corp, filed a declaration with 16 exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 28, 29. The declaration and its exhibits are unintelligible. They do not respond to the motions to dismiss and do not state any comprehensible claim against the defendants. Further, We 2 Corp. continues to be without counsel. Moye's filings fail to address the concerns of the OSC in a sufficient manner.
Because Warren has failed to adequately respond to the April 3 OSC, I adopt Judge Corley's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2018
/s/_________
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge