Petersen v. City of Oakley
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:18-cv-02448
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Petersen v. City of Oakley, Judge Beeler ordered Michael Petersen to explain his absence from a settlement session or risk dismissal for failing to pursue the case.
Michael Petersen, his counsel, the City of Oakley and the other defendants, and the court’s early-neutral-evaluation participants were affected. Petersen was ordered to appear and was warned of possible sanctions and dismissal, but the case was not dismissed in this order.
What happened
In Petersen v. City of Oakley, Michael Petersen alleges that officers broke his arm during an April 28, 2017 incident. The defendants said they could not find records of that interaction, and Petersen did not timely provide records confirming the incident, although he later submitted medical records showing treatment for a fractured left arm.
The court had previously warned Petersen that failing to pursue the case could lead to dismissal. The parties scheduled an early neutral evaluation, a settlement process, for November 4, 2019, but Petersen’s lawyer said he could not reach or locate Petersen for more than a week. The evaluation was canceled, and Petersen’s lawyer also described mental-health and substance-abuse issues affecting Petersen.
Judge Beeler did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, the court ordered Petersen to appear in person on December 5, 2019, and explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pursue it. The court also required his lawyer to report efforts to serve him with the order and warned that Petersen could face monetary sanctions and dismissal if he did not appear.
The detailed version
- Petersen v. City of Oakley · No. 3:18-cv-02448
- Laurel Beeler
- Nov. 14, 2019
Background
Michael Petersen sued the City of Oakley and other defendants over an alleged use of force on April 28, 2017. The amended complaint identifies Officer Terry Black and Officer Doe 1 as the officers who allegedly broke Petersen’s arm. The opinion says that Oakley’s police department had no record of an interaction between its officers and Petersen on that date.
The court ordered Petersen to produce discovery—information exchanged in the lawsuit—confirming the incident and his injury by October 11, 2018. He did not meet that deadline. On December 14, 2018, he produced three pages of medical records showing that he visited an emergency room on May 3, 2017, and underwent surgery for a fractured left arm on May 11, 2017.
Prior Case History
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute on January 9, 2019. On February 28, 2019, Petersen filed a voluntary dismissal. Because the defendants had already answered, court approval was required. After discussing the matter with the parties, the court allowed Petersen until April 1, 2019, to file an amended complaint identifying the incident date and the involved officer. The court warned that failing to file the amended complaint would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. Petersen filed the amended complaint on March 29, 2019.
The defendants later reported that Petersen had not provided medical or ambulance records that might confirm the alleged incident. At a June 20, 2019 case-management conference, the court planned a show-cause hearing—a hearing requiring Petersen to explain why the case should not be dismissed—for failure to prosecute. The hearing was vacated after Petersen submitted medical records following an agreement that signing a medical-release form would resolve the issue.
November 2019 Events
The parties scheduled an early neutral evaluation, a settlement-related court process, for November 4, 2019. They confirmed the session twice. On the scheduled date, Petersen’s lawyer told the evaluator and defendants that he had been unable to reach or locate Petersen for more than a week, so the evaluator canceled the session. At a November 14 case-management conference, Petersen’s lawyer explained that Petersen had mental-health and substance-abuse issues. The court also noted the disruption caused to the volunteer evaluation panel and the evaluator by the cancellation.
Court’s Order
The court incorporated its earlier explanations of the standards for a terminating sanction, meaning a sanction that can end the case. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), failure to prosecute can support involuntary dismissal, and a plaintiff must pursue claims with reasonable diligence. The court warned that continued failure to prosecute could lead to monetary sanctions and dismissal, potentially with prejudice.
The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It ordered Petersen to appear in person on December 5, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. in San Francisco and show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If Petersen did not appear, the court warned that he risked monetary sanctions and dismissal. The court also directed Petersen’s lawyer to serve the order on him in person, by email, and by mail if those methods were available, and to report by December 3, 2019, on efforts to do so.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.