Adam Jawien et al v. County of San Bernardino et al

Filing 46

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: Accordingly, on or before October 19, 2012, plaintiffs are ORDERED to either (a) advise the Court that they do not desire to pursue this action; (b) if plaintiffs do desire to pursue this actio n, show good cause in writing, if any exists, why plaintiffs have not timely filed with the Court a Second Amended Complaint, and why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure t o comply with the Courts prior Order; or (c) serve and file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are forewarned that, if they fail to do either, the Court may deem such failure a further violation of a Court order justifying dismissal, and also deem such failure as further evidence of a lack of prosecution on plaintiffs part. (am)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ADAM JAWIEN, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
vs.
COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No. CV 10-9501-GHK (DTB)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

On June 26, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued its Report and Recommendation

18 (“R&R”) and on August 24, 2012, issued its Amended Report and Recommendation
19 (“Amended R&R”) in this matter. Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R were due on or
20 before July 10, 2012. No Objections were filed within the allotted time and, on
21 August 26, 2012, the District Judge accepted the findings, conclusions and
22 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge granting without leave to amend,
23 defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Merck’s alienation claim in the First Cause of Action;
24 granting with leave to amend, defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Merck’s Monell claim
25 in the Third Cause of Action and Merck’s negligence claim in the Sixth Cause of
26 Action; denying defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Merck’s § 1983 claims for
27 unreasonable search and seizure in the First Cause of Action; Merck’s Bane Act claim
28 in the Fourth Cause of Action; and Merck’s Intentional Infliction of Emotional
1

1 Distress Claim in the Fifth Cause of Action; and denying defendants’ Motion to
2 Strike. The Order expressly stated that if plaintiffs still desired to proceed with this
3 action, they were required to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before
4 September 25, 2012. Plaintiffs have failed to file a Second Amended Complaint
5 within the allotted time nor have they requested an extension of time within which to
6 do so.
7

Accordingly, on or before October 19, 2012, plaintiffs are ORDERED to either

8 (a) advise the Court that they do not desire to pursue this action; (b) if plaintiffs do
9 desire to pursue this action, show good cause in writing, if any exists, why plaintiffs
10 have not timely filed with the Court a Second Amended Complaint, and why the
11 Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure
12 to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court’s prior Order; or (c) serve and file
13 a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs are forewarned that, if they fail to do either,
14 the Court may deem such failure a further violation of a Court order justifying
15 dismissal, and also deem such failure as further evidence of a lack of prosecution on
16 plaintiffs’ part.
17
18 DATED: October 3, 2012
19
20
21
22

DAVID T. BRISTOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2