Tony Roberts v. John Marshall et al

Filing 7

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow. Plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time nor has he requested an extension of time within which to do so. Accordingly, on or before January 31, 2012, plai ntiff is ORDERED to either (a) advise the Court that he does not desire to this action; (b) if plaintiff does desire to pursue this action, show good cause in writing, if any exists, why plaintiff has not timely filed with the Court his First Amended Complaint, and why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Courts prior Order; or (c) serve and file a First Amended Complaint. (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TONY ROBERTS,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN MARSHALL, et al.,
Defendants.

) Case No. CV 11-6623-JVS (DTB)
)
)
)
) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

On October 13, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order Dismissing

19 Complaint With Leave to Amend (“Order”) in this matter dismissing the Complaint
20 and ordering plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Order,
21 plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was due on or before November 14, 2011.
22 Plaintiff failed to file his First Amended Complaint before November 14, 2011.
23 Therefore, on December 8, 2011, the Court, sua sponte, extended plaintiff’s time up
24 to and including December 29, 2011 to file his First Amended Complaint.
25
Plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint within the allotted time
26 nor has he requested an extension of time within which to do so.
27
Accordingly, on or before January 31, 2012, plaintiff is ORDERED to either
28 (a) advise the Court that he does not desire to this action; (b) if plaintiff does desire
1

1 to pursue this action, show good cause in writing, if any exists, why plaintiff has not
2 timely filed with the Court his First Amended Complaint, and why the Court should
3 not recommend that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute
4 and failure to comply with the Court’s prior Order; or (c) serve and file a First
5 Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is forewarned that, if he fails to do either, the Court
6 may deem such failure a further violation of a Court order justifying dismissal, and
7 also deem such failure as further evidence of a lack of prosecution on plaintiff’s part.
8
9 DATED: January 10, 2012
10
11
12
13

DAVID T. BRISTOW
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2