George Edward Mixon v. CSP Los Angeles County et al

Filing 43

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. If plaintiff wishes to continue to pursue this action, he must respond to this Order by July 7, 2015 (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)

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

CV 12-10187-DOC (SP)

Title

GEORGE EDWARD MIXON v. CSP-LOS ANGELES CO., et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 16, 2015

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly Carter

None Appearing

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

None Appearing

None Appearing

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On November 29, 2012, plaintiff George Edward Mixon, a California prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On
December 19, 2012, this court, having completed screening of the complaint, dismissed
it with leave to file a First Amended Complaint. On January 18, 2013, plaintiff filed his
First Amended Complaint, which the court subsequently ordered to be served on
defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and, following
the parties’ briefing of the motion to dismiss, the court found the First Amended
Complaint subject to dismissal in part. In particular, the court found plaintiff failed to
state a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, but did state a claim for excessive
force under the Eighth Amendment against defendants Sirro, Brown, and Pollard, and
also stated a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment against all
defendants. The court further granted plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint by April 13, 2015.
Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise respond to the
court’s order by the April 13, 2015 deadline. Accordingly, on May 4, 2015, the court
issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) by May 25, 2015 why the action should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff also failed to respond to the OSC.
At this point, it appears plaintiff is no longer interested in prosecuting this case.
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 12-10187-DOC (SP)

Date

June 16, 2015

Title

GEORGE EDWARD MIXON v. CSP-LOS ANGELES CO., et al.

But to ensure there is no confusion and plaintiff has every opportunity to pursue this case
if he wishes, the court issues this second Order to Show Cause to clarify plaintiff’s
options. If plaintiff wishes to continue to pursue this action, he must respond to this
Order by July 7, 2015 by doing one of the following:
1.
Plaintiff may pursue this action further by filing a Second Amended
Complaint by July 7, 2015, in which case the OSCs will be automatically discharged.
2.
Plaintiff may pursue this action further by filing a Notice of Intent Not to
Amend First Amended Complaint by July 7, 2015, which will also discharge the OSCs.
If plaintiff timely files such Notice, the court will recommend that plaintiff’s equal
protection claim be dismissed, as well as his excessive force claim against defendant
Moreno, leaving plaintiff free to pursue his remaining claims in the First Amended
Complaint.
If plaintiff does not so respond to this Order by July 7, 2015, or fails to
otherwise show cause by that date why this action should not be dismissed for
failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order, the court will deem his
failure to respond as consent to the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute
and failure to comply with a court order.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2