Washington v. Scribner, et al

Filing 90

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/6/2011. Response Due in Ten Days. (Gonzalez, R)

(PC) Washington v. Scribner, et al

Doc. 90

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 RODERICK WASHINGTON, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plaintiff Roderick Washington, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 11 pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 2, 2001, 12 Washington v. Early, et al., case number 1:03 cv 05263 LJO SMS PC, was dismissed for 13 Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Court's order to show cause why this action should not be 14 dismissed. 15 On March 16, 2011, an order was entered in this case, directing Plaintiff to notify the 16 Court within twenty days of his intention to proceed in this action. Plaintiff was cautioned that 17 his failure to do so would result in an order to show cause why this action should not be 18 dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the order to show 19 cause. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. 21 show cause why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 22 obey the Court's order and 23 2. 24 prejudice. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: b9ed48 April 6, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, with Within ten calendar days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) A. K. SCRIBNER, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:03-cv-05287-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED RESPONSE DUE IN TEN DAYS

Dockets.Justia.com