Lescallett v. Diaz et al

Filing 48

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why Doe Defendants should not be dismissed and this action closed signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/5/2017. Show Cause Response due within 21-Days.(Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL JUNIOR LESCALLETT, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 R. DIAZ, et al., 15 Case No. 1:13-cv-01342-LJO-BAM (PC) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOE DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED AND THIS ACTION CLOSED TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Darrell Junior Lescallett (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On June 29, 2015, the Court found that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint stated a 20 cognizable retaliation claim against Defendants Gipson, Bloomfield and Does Defendants 21 regarding his identification as a 2-5 gang affiliate and placement on a modified program.1 The 22 Court ordered service of the second amended complaint on Defendants Gipson and Bloomfield, 23 but notified Plaintiff that service on the Doe Defendants was not appropriate because the United 24 States Marshal could not serve a Doe Defendant. The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to provide 25 the Court with written notice identifying the Doe Defendants with enough information to locate 26 them for service of process within one-hundred twenty (120) days. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff failed 27 28 1 All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action on July 21, 2015. (ECF No. 18.) 1 1 to provide written notice to the Court identifying the Doe Defendants within the specified time 2 limit. 3 On March 31, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants Gipson 4 and Bloomfield, and referred the matter to the undersigned in order to address the unidentified 5 and unserved Doe Defendants. (ECF No. 31.) 6 Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff 7 shall show cause why the Doe Defendants should not be dismissed and this action closed. 8 Plaintiff may comply with this order by providing sufficient information for the United States 9 Marshal to identify and locate the Doe Defendants for service of process. Plaintiff’s failure to 10 respond to this order will result in dismissal of the Doe Defendants, and this action will be closed 11 without further notice. 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara April 5, 2017 A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 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?