Virgil E. Holt v. P. Finander et al

Filing 26

MINUTE ORDERby Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 3/1/2016. 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 p erjury that establishes good cause for plaintiffs failure to comply with the Courts December 14, 2015 order; and (2) copies of the USM-285 forms that were provided to the United States Marshal Service. Alternatively, if plaintiff does not wish to pursue any of the dismissed claims, he may file a Notice Of Dismissal. (rh)

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

CV 15-5089-JVS (KS)

Date: February 1, 2016

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

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Roxanne Horan-Walker
Deputy Clerk

C/S
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE USM-285 FORMS
AS ORDERED ON DECEMBER 14, 2015

Pursuant to this Court’s Order of November 4, 2015 (ECF No. 18), on December
3, 2015, plaintiff, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 21.) Due to plaintiff’s pauperis
status, on December 14, 2015, the Court directed the United States Marshal to effect
service of process. (ECF No. 23.) In a separate Order, also dated December 14, 2015,
the Court ordered plaintiff to file copies of the USM-285 forms, that he submitted to the
United States Marshal, with the Court. (ECF No. 24.)
Plaintiff, however, took no action in response to the Court’s December 14, 2015
Order (ECF No. 24), and more than 15 days have passed since the deadline for plaintiff to
file copies of the USM-285 forms with the Court.
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
dismissal of the action for plaintiff’s failure to timely comply with the Court’s Order of
December 14, 2015 (ECF No. 24).

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 (KS)

Date: February 1, 2016

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

However, in the interests of justice, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before March 1, 2016, 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 December 14, 2015 order; and (2) copies of the USM-285 forms that were
provided to the United States Marshal Service. 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 December 14, 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