Uhuru Sugal Vaughn v. J Camacho et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing either a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies of the FAC, or a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why he is unable to do so. (See document for further details). (sbou)

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

CV 13-7498 SVW (SS)

Title:

Uhuru Sugal Vaughn v. J. Camacho, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY:

Date: June 19, 2015
Page 1 of 2

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

PRESENT:
HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_Marlene Ramirez_

_______None_______

__None__

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter/Recorder

Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On November 27, 2013, Uhuru Sugal Vaughn (“Plaintiff”), a California state
prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(the “Complaint”). On April 7, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to
amend due to various pleading deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 6). On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed
a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). (Dkt. No. 7). On February 20, 2015, and March
23, 2015, respectively, Defendants F. Villalobos and J. Camacho filed Motions to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s FAC (the “Motions to Dismiss”). (Dkt. Nos. 26, 32).
On April 30, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order Granting in Part
Motions to Dismiss (the “Order”) due to pleading deficiencies in Plaintiff’s FAC. (Dkt.
No. 38). Based on the Order, Plaintiff was required to file a Second Amended Complaint
by May 30, 2015, if he still wished to pursue this action. (See Order at 12). The Court

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

CV 13-7498 SVW (SS)

Title:

Date: June 19, 2015
Page 2 of 2

Uhuru Sugal Vaughn v. J. Camacho, et al.

expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint would
result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
prosecute. (See id. at 13-14). As of today, however, Plaintiff has failed to file a Second
Amended Complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14)
days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing either a Second Amended
Complaint curing the deficiencies of the FAC, or a declaration under penalty of perjury
explaining why he is unable to do so.
If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a voluntary
dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice
of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. Petitioner is again
warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute
and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his
address of record and on counsel for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk mr