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)
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?