Diaz v. Sherman et al
ORDER Discharging 23 Order to Show Cause, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/21/15. (Verduzco, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1627-LJO-MJS (PC)
(ECF No. 23)
STU SHERMAN, et al.,
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff’s
complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, but he was given leave to file a first
amended complaint. (ECF No. 10.)
Plaintiff sought and was granted two extensions of time to file an amended
complaint. (ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16.) The extended deadline passed without Plaintiff
either filing an amended pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so. On July 10,
2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within fourteen days why the action
should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to obey a court order and failure to
prosecute. (ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff did not timely respond to the order. On July 30, the
Court issued findings and a recommendation to dismiss the action. (ECF No. 18.)
On August 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed his response to the Court’s order to show cause.
(ECF No. 19.) Based on Plaintiff’s response, the findings and recommendation were
vacated, the order to show cause was discharged, and Plaintiff was granted an
extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 20.) Thereafter, Plaintiff
sought and was granted a further extension of time to file an amended complaint. (ECF
No. 22.) The extended deadline again passed without Plaintiff either filing an amended
pleading or seeking an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, on October 31, 2014,
Plaintiff again was ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed. (ECF
Thereafter, on November 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. (ECF
No. 24.) He filed a response to the order to show cause on November 19, 2014, stating
that his amended complaint was timely filed. (ECF No. 25.)
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is dated October 30, 2014. (ECF No. 24.) It was not
timely under the Court’s September 19, 2014 order granting Plaintiff an extension of
time. (ECF No. 22.) The Court does not take lightly Plaintiff’s repeated failure to timely
respond to Court orders nor the ten month delay in Plaintiff filing his amended complaint.
These failures are sufficient to warrant dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute and
failure to obey a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir.
1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint).
Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court will discharge the order to
show cause and will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint in due course.
Accordingly, the order to show cause (ECF No. 23), filed October 31, 2014, is
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 21, 2015
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?