George Hudson v. Alfredo Franco et al

Filing 38

Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders by Magistrate Judge Kenly Kiya Kato. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 9/14/2015. (dts)

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

CV 14-1247-JLS (KK)

Title

GEORGE HUDSON v. ALFREDO FRANCO, ET AL.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

August 31, 2015

Kenly Kiya Kato, United States Magistrate Judge

Deb Taylor

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply With Court Orders

I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 8, 2014, Plaintiff George Hudson, a California state prisoner
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, constructively filed a civil rights complaint
(“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff alleges Defendants Alfredo
Franco and Kirk Richardson, who appear to be Los Angeles County deputies, assaulted
him on June 1, 2011, in violation of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendments. See ECF No. 8 at 3, 5.
On July 1, 2014, the Court issued an Order directing service of process by the
United States Marshal. ECF No. 15.
On February 24, 2015, defendants Franco and Richardson filed an answer to the
Complaint. ECF No. 22.
On February 26, 2015, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order
which required, among other things, the parties to file and serve a status report no later
1

Under the “mailbox rule,” a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as of the
date the prisoner delivered the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, not the date on which the
pleading may have been received by the court. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir.
2000). Here, Plaintiff states he signed the Complaint on February 8, 2014. ECF No. 8 at 6. Thus, the
Court considers that date to be the date of filing.
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 14-1247-JLS (KK)

Date

Title

August 31, 2015

GEORGE HUDSON v. ALFREDO FRANCO, ET AL.

than July 24, 2015. ECF No. 24.
On July 17, 2015, the two defendants filed their required status report. ECF No.
35. As of this date, Plaintiff has failed to file his required status report.
II.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the Court may dismiss an action with
prejudice for lack of prosecution or for failure to comply with any court order. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to file a status report, thus, failing to comply with the
Court’s February 26, 2015 Order. Consequently, under Rule 41(b), the Court may
properly dismiss the instant action with prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply
with a court order. However, before dismissing this action, the Court will afford Plaintiff
an opportunity to explain his failure to file a status report as directed by this Court Order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with court orders.
Plaintiff shall have up to and including September 14, 2015 to respond to this Order.
Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this Order will be deemed
by the Court as consent to the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2