Roderick Himes v. J. Gastelo et al

Filing 53

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION by Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by 11/29/2019 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for want of prosecution. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal (Form CV-09)) (csi)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:18-cv-00327-PSG (MAA)

Date: October 29, 2019

Title

Roderick Himes v. J. Gastelo, et al.

Present:

The Honorable MARIA A. AUDERO, United States Magistrate Judge
Chris Silva
Deputy Clerk

N/A
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
N/A

Attorneys Present for Defendants:
N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

On March 25, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice, and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. (Order Adopting
R&R, ECF No. 33.) On April 2, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff Roderick Himes (“Plaintiff”) to,
no later than May 2, 2019, either: (1) file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), or (2) advise the
Court that Plaintiff does not intend to file a FAC. (Order, ECF No. 34.)
On May 21, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause by June 20, 2019 why the Court
should not recommend that the case be dismissed for failure to follow the Court’s orders and/or for
want of prosecution. (“OSC,” ECF No. 35.) In response to the OSC, on June 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed
a “Declaration in Support or Order to Show Cause,” which the Court accepted as a “Motion for
Appointment of Counsel and Notice of Dismissal.” (Motion Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 36.) On
June 11, 2019, the Court discharged the OSC and suspended Plaintiff’s deadline to file a FAC
pending resolution of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Order, ECF No. 37.) After the
Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Order Denying Counsel, ECF No. 38),
the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a FAC by July 22, 2019 (Order, ECF No. 39).
On August 1, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file a
FAC, and extended Plaintiff’s deadline to September 3, 2019. (Order, ECF No. 43.) The Court
subsequently granted Plaintiff’s second request for an extension of time to file a FAC, and extended
Plaintiff’s deadline again to September 24, 2019. (Order, ECF No. 52.)

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 2:18-cv-00327-PSG (MAA)
Title

Date: October 29, 2019

Roderick Himes v. J. Gastelo, et al.

To date, Plaintiff has filed neither a FAC nor a Notice of Dismissal of the action. (A Notice
of Dismissal form is attached to this order.) Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by
November 29, 2019 why the Court should not recommend that the case be dismissed for want of
prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1. If Plaintiff files a FAC or a Notice of
Dismissal on or before that date, this Order to Show Cause will be discharged, and no additional
action need be taken.
Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this order will result in a
recommendation that the lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute
and/or comply with court orders. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-1.
It is so ordered.
Attachment: Notice of Dismissal (Form CV-09)

Time in Court:
Initials of Preparer:
CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

0:00
CSI
Page 2 of 2