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)

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