Allen v. Stanislaus County et al

Filing 89

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS WHY TERMINATING SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S SCHEDULING ORDER 84 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/15/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COLUMBUS ALLEN, JR.

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00012-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS WHY
TERMINATING SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER
(Doc. No. 84)

Plaintiff Columbus Allen, Jr. is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants County of Stanislaus, Puthuff, Christianson,

19
20

Captain Duncan, and Lieutenant Lloyd for denial of outdoor exercise, against Defendants Lieutenant

21

Suarez, Sergeant Galles, Sergeant Truffa, Mauldin, Meyers, and Williams for a due process violation

22

for denial of access to telephone privileges, against Defendants Lieutenant Suarez, Lieutenant Clifton,

23

Sergeant Truffa, Sergeant Radza, Williams, Aziz, Maze, and Cardoza for failure to protect, and against

24

Defendants Lieutenant Clifton, Sergeant Radza, and Cardoza for retaliation.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

On March 30, 2017, the Court issued the Second Scheduling Order, which required Plaintiff to

2

serve and file a pretrial statement on or before May 31, 2017. (Doc. No. 84.) Plaintiff failed to comply

3

with the Court’s order to file a pretrial statement.1

4

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1.

Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause

6

why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s

7

order and Local Rules and for failure to prosecute this action;
2.

8

Plaintiff is warned that the failure to respond to this order or to show good cause
will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice; and

9
3.

10

The deadline for Defendants to file their pretrial statement is extended to July 10, 2017.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

June 15, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

On May 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 16, 2017, denying his request for
appointment of counsel. This filing contains no mention of Plaintiff’s filing of a pretrial statement. (ECF No. 87.)

2