Crim v. Management & Training Corp. et al

Filing 97

ORDER for Plaintiff to Either: (1) Respond in Writing that he intends to Litigate this case, or (2) File a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of this Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 05/08/2017.(Case Management Deadline: 10-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN MICHAEL CRIM,
Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

1:09-cv-02041-AWI-GSA-PC
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO EITHER:
(1) RESPOND IN WRITING THAT HE
INTENDS TO LITIGATE THIS CASE, OR

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING
CORP., et al.,

15

(2) FILE A NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE

Defendants.
16

TEN DAY DEADLINE

17
18

I.

DISCUSSION

19

John Michael Crim (“Plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with this

20

civil action. On November 20, 2009, Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action.

21

(ECF No. 1.) On September 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No.

22

28.) On January 26, 2011, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint under Rule 220,

23

with leave to amend. (ECF No. 34.) On February 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended

24

Complaint. (ECF No. 35.) On May 25, 2012, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to

25

either file a Third Amended Complaint complying with Rule 18, or notify the court he is

26

willing to proceed either, (1) only against defendant McBride for retaliation, or (2) only against

27

defendants Mann and Patrick for disciplinary action related to the Inmate Financial

28

Responsibility Program. (ECF No. 59.) On June 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended
1

1

Complaint against defendants Management & Training Corp., Adler, Stewart, Curtis Logan,

2

and Does 1-50. (ECF No. 73.)

3

On August 2, 2013, the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and

4

judgment was entered on the same day. (ECF Nos. 87, 88.) On August 16, 2013, Plaintiff filed

5

a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 89.) On April 12, 2017, the Ninth Circuit

6

reversed the dismissal of this case and remanded it to the district court. (ECF No. 95.)

7

Ninth Circuit’s mandate was issued on May 4, 2017. (ECF No. 96.) The Ninth Circuit directed

8

the district court to consider whether Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint states a claim.

9

Accordingly, the court has reopened this case for further proceedings.

The

10

At this stage of the proceedings, the court shall require Plaintiff to respond to this order

11

within ten (10) days, either: (1) indicating that he intends to litigate this case, or (2) filing a

12

Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of this case.

13

II.

14
15

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the

date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:

16

(1)

respond in writing that he intends to litigate this case, or

17

(2)

file a Notice of Voluntarily Dismissal of this case.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2