Natalio Trevizo v. S. Webster et al

Filing 27

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before November 12, 2018, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (see order for details) (hr)

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

CV 17-5868-MWF (KS)

Date: October 22, 2018

Natalio Trevizo v. S. Webster et al

Present: The Honorable:

Karen L. Stevenson, United States Magistrate Judge

Gay Roberson
Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff, a prisoner incarcerated at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Lompoc, California (“FCI-Lompoc”) and proceeding pro se, filed a civil
rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), concerning, inter alia, Plaintiff’s exposure to, and
contraction of, an infectious medical disease and his subsequent medical treatment. (Dkt.
No. 1.) On July 31, 2018, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend and
ordered Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint correcting the defects identified by
the Court no later than August 30, 2018. (Dkt. No. 19.) On August 30, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). (Dkt. No. 23.) On September 6, 2018,
the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiff to file a Second
Amended Complaint within 30 days, i.e., no later than October 6, 2018, and warned
Plaintiff that his failure to do so could result in a recommendation of dismissal pursuant
to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. No. 25.)
On September 10, 2018, Plaintiff sent the Clerk a document entitled “Power of
Attorney,” which did not reference the case caption, case number, or any of the factual
allegations of Plaintiff’s earlier pleadings, and the Court ordered the document rejected
and returned. (Dkt. No. 26.) More than two weeks have passed since Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint was due, and Plaintiff has not filed the Second Amended
Complaint, notified the Court of a change of address, or otherwise communicated with
the Court about this case.
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 17-5868-MWF (KS)

Date: October 22, 2018

Natalio Trevizo v. S. Webster et al

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 September 6, 2018
Order.
However, in the interests of justice, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before November 12, 2018, why the Court should not recommend that this action
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing: (1) a
request for an extension of time to file a Second Amended Complaint and a declaration
signed under penalty of perjury, explaining why he failed to comply with the Court’s
September 6, 2018 order; or (2) a Second Amended Complaint. Alternatively, if Plaintiff
does not wish to pursue this action, he may dismiss the Complaint without prejudice by
filing a signed document entitled “Notice Of Voluntary Dismissal” pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A).
Plaintiff is advised that the failure to respond to this order will lead the Court
to recommend dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

gr

Page 2 of 2