Arroyo v. Tilton, et al.

Filing 64

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Action Should not be Dismissed signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 01/27/2015. Show Cause Response due by 2/20/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RENE ARROYO,

12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01186 AWI DLB PC
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

v.
TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

14
15

JAMES TILTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Rene Arroyo (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on July

19

19, 2011. On March 5, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that it stated

20

cognizable claims against Defendants Adams, Schneider, Carter, Matthews, Leon, and Hubach.

21

Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint, or notify the Court of his intent to proceed only

22

on the cognizable claims found in the order. On March 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed notice of his intent to

23

proceed only on the cognizable claims. Therefore, on April 30, 2012, the Court ordered that the

24

action proceed on the following cognizable claims: (1) violation of the Fourth Amendment against

25

Defendant Adams; (2) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendant Adams; (3)

26

violation of the Eighth Amendment base on the use of excessive force against Defendants Schneider,

27

Carter, Matthews and Leon; (4) violation of the Eighth Amendment based on conditions of

28

confinement against Defendants Hubach, Matthews and Leon; (5) violation of the right to privacy
1

1
2
3

under the California Constitution against Defendant Adams; (6) unreasonable search in violation of
Article I, Section 13 of the California Constitution against Defendant Adams; and (7) use of
excessive force in violation of Article I, Section 17 of the California Constitution against Defendants

4
Schneider, Carter, Matthews and Leon. The Court dismissed all other claims and Defendants.
5
On September 20, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 46.)
6
Plaintiff did not file an opposition. On September 30, 2013, after having paroled, Plaintiff notified
7

the Court of his change of address. On January 10, 2014, the Court stayed Defendants’ motion for

8
summary judgment pending resolution of discovery issues. On October 29, 2014, the stay was
9
10
11
12

lifted. The Court noted that Plaintiff had not filed an opposition and therefore directed Plaintiff to
file an opposition within thirty (30) days. Plaintiff did not do so. In fact, since September 30, 2013,
Plaintiff has not communicated with the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be

13
14
15

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff shall file a response to this order within twenty-one (21)
days of the date of service.
Failure to show cause, or failure to respond to this order, will result in dismissal of this

16
17
18

action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

January 27, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2