Jamel Antione West v. S Ibarra et al

Filing 15

OSC FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 10/8/2015, why the Court should not recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge t his Order by filing: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, explaining why he has failed to comply with the Courts August 10, 2015 order; and (2) if plaintiff wishes to pursue any of the dismissed claims, a Second Amended Complaint, or, if plaintiff does not wish to pursue any of the dismissed claims, a Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended Complaint or a Notice Of Dismissal. (rh)

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

EDCV 15-692-VAP (KLS)

Date: September 8, 2015

Jamel Antoine West v. S. Ibarra 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 April 9, 2015, plaintiff, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed a civil rights Complaint against defendants, five West Valley Detention
Center guards, for excessive force. (ECF Docket No. 1.) On April 24, 2015, the Court
dismissed the Complaint except to the extent it asserted an individual capacity excessive
force claim against defendant M. Morgan. (ECF Docket No. 6.)
On June 15, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which the
Court dismissed on August 10, 2015 except to the extent it asserted individual capacity
excessive force claims against the five defendants. (ECF Docket Nos. 10, 11.) In its
August 10, 2015 Order, the Court directed plaintiff to file by August 24, 2015 a Second
Amended Complaint or, if plaintiff did not wish to pursue any of the dismissed claims,
either a Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended Complaint or a Notice Of
Dismissal. (ECF Docket No. 11.) The Court expressly cautioned plaintiff that his
“failure to timely respond to this Order – i.e., to file either (i) a Second Amended
Complaint; or (ii) a Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended Complaint or Notice
Of Dismissal – may result in a recommendation to dismiss this action with or without
prejudice based upon plaintiff’s failure diligently to prosecute and/or plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Court’s order.” (Id.)

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

EDCV 15-692-VAP (KLS)

Date: September 8, 2015

Jamel Antoine West v. S. Ibarra et al

Plaintiff, however, took no action in response to the Court’s August 10, 2015
Order. The deadline for plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint, Notice Of Intent
Not To File Second Amended Complaint, or Notice Of Dismissal is now 15 days past.
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
August 10, 2015.
However, in the interests of justice, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE
on or before October 8, 2015, why the Court should not recommend that this action be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by
filing: (1) a declaration signed under penalty of perjury, explaining why he has failed to
comply with the Court’s August 10, 2015 order; and (2) if plaintiff wishes to pursue any
of the dismissed claims, a Second Amended Complaint, or, if plaintiff does not wish to
pursue any of the dismissed claims, a Notice Of Intent Not To File Second Amended
Complaint or a Notice Of Dismissal.
Plaintiff is advised that the failure to respond to this order will lead the Court
to conclude that Plaintiff does not intend to continue this action, and the action will
be recommended for dismissal on that basis and under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (03/15)

Civil Minutes – General

:
RH

Page 2 of 2