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