Coats v. Chaudhri et al

Filing 46

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Doe Defendants should not be Dismissed; Show Cause Response due within Twenty-One (21) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 9/12/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM THOMAS COATS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRI, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:13-cv-02032-AWI-BAM (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DOE
DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff William Thomas Coats (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17
18

forma pauperis in the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On November 3, 2014, the Court found that Plaintiff’s complaint stated a cognizable

20

claim against Defendant Dr. Chaudhri and John Doe emergency medical staff at the prison for

21

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment.1 The

22

Court ordered service of the complaint on Defendant Dr. Chaudhri, but notified Plaintiff that

23

service on the doe defendants was not appropriate because the United States Marshal could not

24

serve a doe defendant. The Court therefore ordered Plaintiff to provide the Court with written

25

notice identifying the doe defendants with enough information to locate them for service of

26
27
28

1

All other claims and defendants were dismissed from this action. (ECF No. 10.) By separate order, the
Court has issued findings and recommendations that Defendant Chaudhri’s motion for summary judgment be
granted. (ECF No. 45.)

1

1

process within one-hundred twenty (120) days. (ECF No. 10.) Plaintiff failed to provide written

2

notice to the Court identifying the doe defendants within the specified time limit.

3

Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff

4

shall show cause why the doe defendants should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff may

5

comply with this order by providing sufficient information for the United States Marshal to

6

identify and locate the doe defendants for service of process. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this

7

order will result in dismissal of the Doe Defendants.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

September 12, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2