Clark v. California Department Of Corrections And Rehabilitations Substance Abuse Treatment Facility et al

Filing 30

ORDER DISCHARGING 28 Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and ORDER GRANTING 29 Plaintiff's Request for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/3/2015. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

STEPHEN CLARK,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
DR. KOKOR, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:12-cv-00461-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 28)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 29)

Plaintiff Stephen Clark (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil rights action on March 27, 2012. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
complaint against Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor for deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On April 25, 2014, Defendants Ugwueze and Kokor filed a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim and for qualified immunity. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff failed to file an opposition
or statement of non-opposition to the motion. Local Rule 230(l). Accordingly, on November 7,
2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss within
twenty-one days. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply with the Court’s order would
result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 25.)

28
1

1

On December 1, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file his

2

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff failed to file a timely

3

opposition. Therefore, on January 13, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, within

4

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to

5

prosecute. (ECF No. 78.)

6

On February 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause, along with a

7

notice of change of address. In his response, Plaintiff explains that as a result of incidents

8

occurring in early December 2014, he was forced to relocate his family for safety reasons.

9

Plaintiff now requests a second extension of time to file his opposition to Defendant’s motion to

10
11

dismiss. (ECF No. 29.)
Based on Plaintiff’s response, the Court finds good cause to extend the deadline for

12

Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court’s January 13, 2015 order

13

to show cause is HEREBY DISCHARGED. Further, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

14

to file his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff shall

15

serve and file his opposition to the motion to dismiss within thirty (30) days after service of this

16

order. No further extensions of time shall be granted absent a showing of good cause. If

17

Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, this action may be dismissed for failure to prosecute or

18

failure to obey a court order.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 3, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2