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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?