Daryll Van Snowden v. Stephen A Cazares et al

Filing 71

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. On December 15, 2015, this Court issued an order ("December Order"), which advised plaintiff of multiple deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, dismissed the F irst Amended Complaint, and granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by not later than January 4, 2016. The December Order expressly cautioned plaintiff that the failure timely to file a Second Amended Complaint may result in the di smissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds set forth in the December Order and/or for failure diligently to prosecute. To date, although the foregoing deadline has expired, plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint. IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show good cause in writing, on or before February 8, 2016, why this action should not be dismissed based upon the deficiencies identified in the December Order and/or upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (dml)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-3443 DSF(JC)

Title

Daryll Van Snowden v. Stephen A. Cazares, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 25, 2016

Jacqueline Chooljian, United States Magistrate Judge

Hana Rashad

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

none

none

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL

On May 18, 2012, Daryll Van Snowden (“plaintiff”), who is at liberty and has been granted leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, filed a pro se civil rights complaint (“Original Complaint”) pursuant to,
inter alia, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (“Bivens”), 403 U.S. 388 (1971),1 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(“Section 1983”); and 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (“Section 1985”) against (1) Assistant United States Attorney
(“AUSA”) Stephen A. Cazares; (2) AUSA Ellyn Marcus Lindsay; and (3) Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) agent Adam Storer (collectively “defendants”). Plaintiff sued defendants based on
alleged constitutional violations committed in connection with the investigation and prosecution of
plaintiff on federal charges of mail fraud, sale of unregistered securities, and conspiracy (“Criminal
Case”). (Original Complaint at 3).
On August 21, 2015, this Court issued an order (“August Order”), which advised plaintiff of
multiple deficiencies in the Original Complaint, dismissed certain claims in the Original Complaint and
granted plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint.
On September 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint against the same defendants,
which essentially alleged that defendants conspired to violate plaintiff’s constitutional rights in
connection with the Criminal Case by fabricating incriminating evidence against plaintiff before
probable cause to arrest plaintiff existed, and later suppressing exculpatory evidence, suborning perjury,
and presenting false evidence to indict and convict plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the defendants in their
individual capacities only, and sought injunctive and monetary relief.

1

In Bivens, the United States Supreme Court established that “compensable injury to a
constitutionally protected interest [by federal officials alleged to have acted under color of federal law]
could be vindicated by a suit for damages invoking the general federal question jurisdiction of the
federal courts. . . .” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 486 (1978).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-3443 DSF(JC)

Date

Title

January 25, 2016

Daryll Van Snowden v. Stephen A. Cazares, et al.

On December 15, 2015, this Court issued an order (“December Order”), which advised plaintiff
of multiple deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint, dismissed the First Amended Complaint, and
granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint by not later than January 4, 2016. The
December Order expressly cautioned plaintiff that the failure timely to file a Second Amended
Complaint may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds set forth in
the December Order and/or for failure diligently to prosecute. To date, although the foregoing deadline
has expired, plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint.2
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show good cause in writing, on or before February 8,
2016, why this action should not be dismissed based upon the deficiencies identified in the December
Order and/or upon plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure timely to comply with this order and/or to show good
cause, may result in the dismissal of this action based upon the deficiencies identified in the
December Order, plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and/or plaintiff’s failure to comply
with the Court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

On January 4, 2016, plaintiff improperly sent an email to the Court’s Chamber’s email address
requesting that he be afforded “a few more days” to “amend the complaint.” Such email was the subject
of a discrepancy notice and was not filed.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2