Antonio A. Calles v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 32

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Re: Lack of Prosecution by Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing,no later than October 20, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See Order for complete details) (Attachments: # 1 Courts May 11, 2017, Order, # 2 Notice of Dismissal (Blank), # 3 Civil Rights Complaint (Blank)) (afe)

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

ED CV 16-1382-R-AS

Title

Antonio Calles v. Dr. Johannes Haar

Present: The Honorable
Alma Felix
Deputy Clerk

Date

September 26, 2017

Alka Sagar, United States Magistrate Judge
Not reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present

Not present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order to Show Cause Re: Lack of Prosecution

On May 11, 2017, the Court issued an ordered granting-in-part and denying-in-part
Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Plaintiff’s First Amended
Complaint with leave to amend. (Docket Entry No. 31). Plaintiff directed to “file a Second
Amended Complaint no later than 30 days from the date of this Order.” Id. at 18. Plaintiff was
“explicitly cautioned that failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint, or failure to
correct the deficiencies described . . . , may result in a recommendation that this action, or
portions thereof, be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply
with court orders.” (Id. at 14).
To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint or request a further
extension of time to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing,
no later than October 20, 2017, why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for
failure to prosecute. This Order will be discharged upon the filing of a Second Amended
Complaint that cures the deficiencies in the last pleading or upon the filing of a declaration under
penalty of perjury stating why Plaintiff is unable to file a Second Amended Complaint. A copy
of the Court’s May 11, 2017, Order is attached for Plaintiff’s convenience.
If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a voluntary
dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A notice of dismissal form is
attached for Plaintiff’s convenience. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to timely respond to

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

ED CV 16-1382-R-AS

Date

Title

September 26, 2017

Antonio Calles v. Dr. Johannes Haar

this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and obey court orders.
cc: Manuel L. Real
United States District Judge
0
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

AF

Page 2 of 2