Sai Yang v. Drug Enforcement Administration et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED by Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh. Accordingly, by April 6, 2018, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or c omply with the Court's previous order. If Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint by April 6, 2018, this Order to Show Cause will be automatically discharged and Plaintiff will not need to file a separate response addressing it. (See document for further details.) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (sbou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.
Title

ED CV 17-01753-ODW (PJW)

Date

March 12, 2018

Sai Yang v. Drug Enforcement Administration, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Patrick J. Walsh, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Martinez

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

Order To Show Cause Why First Amended Complaint Should Not Be
Dismissed

On December 27, 2017, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a response as to why his First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) should not be dismissed. (Doc. No. 37.) The crux of Plaintiff’s FAC is that a DEA
agent planted an electronic device on him, which has caused him to hear voices, be “mind controlled,”
and caused him to become schizophrenic. (FAC at 2.) He believes that unknown DEA agents, his
neighbor, and others have harassed, “gang stalked,” and followed him. (FAC at 2-4.) He claims that
Defendants have committed several crimes in violation of California law and various federal statutes. He
alleges that law enforcement entered his hotel room, without a warrant, and planted an electronic device
on him. (FAC at 2.) On February 6, 2018, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave
to file a Second Amended Complaint by February 28, 2018. The Court has not received a Second
Amended Complaint or any other communication from Plaintiff.
Accordingly, by April 6, 2018, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with the Court’s previous order. Plaintiff
is cautioned that failure to timely file a response will be deemed consent to the dismissal of this action.
In the event Plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this action, he may complete and return the enclosed
Notice of Dismissal form by April 6, 2018.
If Plaintiff files a Second Amended Complaint by April 6, 2018, this Order to Show Cause will
be automatically discharged and Plaintiff will not need to file a separate response addressing it.

S:\PJW\Cases-Civil Rights\YANG\MO_OSC why FAC should not be dismissed .wpd

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (12/02)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

00

im
Page 1 of 1