Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 84

ORDER Requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why Defendant Brooks Should not be Dismissed from this Case for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute Against Her signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/15/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN E. RANSOM, Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 McCABE, et al., Defendants. 15 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA-PC ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT BROOKS SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS CASE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AGAINST HER THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 I. BACKGROUND Bryan E. Ransom (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case now proceeds with the First Amended 20 Complaint filed on July 10, 2014, against defendants C. McCabe, E. Clark, K. Gill, J. Sao, P. 21 Rouch, D. Strome, R. Herrera, S. Dougherty, J. Kaiser, M. Brooks, E. Molina, G. Torres, 22 Quillen, D. Riley, H. Rocha, W. Hayward, J. Faldon (Correctional Officer), and J. Faldon 23 (Nurse) (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 10.) 24 On November 4, 2014, the court entered an order directing the United States Marshal 25 (“Marshal”) to serve process upon the defendants in this action. (ECF No. 18.) On July 9, 26 2015, the Marshal filed a return of service executed as to defendant M. Brooks . (ECF No. 39.) 27 The return of service indicates that defendant Brooks was personally served with process on 28 July 6, 2015. (Id.) Under Rule 12, defendant Brooks had twenty-one days in which to file an 1 1 answer or motion under Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff=s complaint. More than two years have 2 passed and defendant Brooks has not filed an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other 3 response to Plaintiff=s complaint. (See court docket.) 4 Rule 55. Id. 5 II. Plaintiff has not filed a motion under ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 6 Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why 7 defendant M. Brooks should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff=s failure to 8 prosecute against her. 9 10 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a 11 written response to the court, showing cause why defendant M. Brooks should 12 not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute against her; 13 and 14 2. 15 Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result a recommendation that this action be dismissed. 16 17 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 15, 2017 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?