Benjamin Lee v. Officer Pirko et al

Filing 68

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Steve Kim. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than April 6, 2017 why the First Amended Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and why this action s hould not be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders. Plaintiff may discharge this Order to Show Cause by withdrawing the motion for stay and filing an amended complaint consistent with the Court's prior screening and clarification ord ers. This is Plaintiff's final opportunity to cure the deficiencies in the First Amended Complaint and file an amended complaint that states a claim for relief not barred by Heck. (Attachments: # 1 Voluntary Dismissal, # 2 Civil Rights Complaint Form) (mkr)

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

ED CV 15-1051-VBF (SK)

Title

Benjamin Lee v. CHP Officer Pirko, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 6, 2017

Steve Kim, United States Magistrate Judge

Marc Krause

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Smart / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) following the Court’s order dismissing
his original complaint with leave to amend under the screening authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
(ECF Nos. 35, 40). That screening order explained that certain of Plaintiff’s claims were barred
by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Because the FAC did not cure the deficiencies laid
out in the screening order, the Court issued a subsequent order seeking clarification from
Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff understood why Heck foreclosed many of his claims and
afforded him the opportunity to file a second amended complaint that alleged only claims not
precluded by Heck. (ECF No. 64). In response, Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint or
provide any clarification of his understanding or intent as ordered by the Court, but instead –
with one sentence – sought a stay of the FAC without citing any law or providing any reasons.
(ECF No. 67). Plaintiff has not complied with the instructions in either the Court’s screening
or clarification orders.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by no later than
April 6, 2017 why the FAC should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim and
why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders.
Plaintiff may discharge this Order to Show Cause by withdrawing the motion for
stay and filing an amended complaint consistent with the Court’s prior screening
and clarification orders. This is Plaintiff’s final opportunity to cure the
deficiencies in the FAC and file an amended complaint that states a claim for
relief not barred by Heck.
Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Order to Show Cause shall result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to comply with court
orders and/or failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(b) and Local Civil Rule 41-1. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action he may
request a voluntary dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a Notice of Dismissal form (CV-009) and the
court-approved Civil Rights Complaint form (CV-66).
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1