Virgil E. Holt v. P. Finander et al

Filing 16

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson.However, in the interests of justice, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before November 5, 2015, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. *See Court's Order.* (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal) (es)

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

CV 15-5089-JVS (KLS)

Date: October 5, 2015

Virgil E. Holt v. P. Finander, et al

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Roxanne Horan-Walker
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On July 6, 2015, plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed a civil rights Complaint against the Chief Medical Executive
employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and
eight other CDCR employees on the prison medical staff. (ECF Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff
alleged that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by being deliberately
indifferent to his medical needs in connection with a fractured left wrist.
On August 24, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend due
to defects in pleading. (ECF Docket No. 15). The Court ordered plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of the Order – that is, no later than
September 24, 2015 – and warned plaintiff that his failure to do so could result in the case
being dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff, however, took no action in response to the Court’s August 24, 2015
Order, and more than 10 days have passed since the deadline for plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint.
A pro se litigant “is subject to the same rules of procedure and evidence” as other
parties “who are represented by counsel.” United States v. Merrill, 746 F.2d 458, 465
(9th Cir. 1984). Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action
may be subject to involuntary dismissal if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with
these rules or a court order.” Accordingly, the Court could properly recommend
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 15-5089-JVS (KLS)

Date: October 5, 2015

Virgil E. Holt v. P. Finander, et al

dismissal of the action for Plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order of
August 24, 2015.
However, in the interests of justice, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before November 5, 2015, why the Court should not recommend that this action
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. If plaintiff wishes to proceed with any of the
dismissed claims, he may discharge this Order by filing: (1) a declaration signed under
penalty of perjury that establishes good cause for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the
Court’s August 24, 2015 order; and (2) an Amended Complaint. Alternatively, if
plaintiff does not wish to pursue any of the dismissed claims, he may file a Notice Of
Dismissal.
Plaintiff is advised that the failure to timely respond to this order and
establish good cause for his failure to comply with the August 24, 2015 order may
result in the dismissal of his case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and Local Rule
41-1.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

:
rh

Page 2 of 2