Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00049-PSF-BNB.
May 21, 2007
ORDER
By an Order [Doc. # 13] dated April 13, 2007, this matter was set for a supplemental scheduling conference on April 30, 2007. The conference was later reset by minute order [Doc. # 14] to May 21, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. The Order also required the parties to "confer and submit a joint proposed scheduling order. . . ." Order [Doc. # 13] at p. 1.
Defendant's counsel appeared at the supplemental scheduling conference on May 21, 2007, but the plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, neither appeared nor contacted the court. In addition, I am informed that the plaintiff failed to confer with defense counsel concerning the proposed scheduling order and failed to participate in its preparation.
Local rule of practice 41.1, D.C.COLO.LCivR, provides:
A judicial officer may issue an order to show cause why a case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with these rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or any court order. If good cause is not shown within the time set in the show cause order, a district judge or a magistrate judge exercising consent jurisdiction may enter an order of dismissal with or without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show cause, if any there be, in writing and on or before June 4, 2007, why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1 for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with the order of the court setting the supplemental scheduling conference and requiring the joint preparation of a proposed scheduling order.