King v. Deathriage et al

Filing 62

ORDER requiring Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within 10-Days why terminating sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court's Scheduling Order 47 signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/1/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL STEVEN KING, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. S. DEATHRIAGE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS WHY TERMINATING SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc. No. 47) 17 Plaintiff Michael Steven King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds to a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims against 19 Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 20 Amendment. The matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on March 23, 2017, and a 21 jury trial on May 16, 2017. 22 On September 26, 2016, the Court issued the Second Scheduling Order, which required 23 Plaintiff to serve and file a pretrial statement on or before February 21, 2017. (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff 24 failed to comply with the Court’s order to file a pretrial statement.1 On February 28, 2017, Defendants 25 26 27 28 1 On January 9, 2017. Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of witnesses who agree to testify voluntarily (Doc. No. 52), and a motion to compel, (Doc. No. 53). More recently, on February 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice and motion for an expert witness, (Doc. 59), and on February 27, 2017, he filed a notice and motion for non-authorization or release of his medical records, (Doc. No. 60). None of those filings contain any mention of Plaintiff’s filing of a pretrial statement. (Doc. No. 66.) 1 1 filed their pretrial statement in compliance with the Court’s order, confirming that they have not 2 received any pretrial statement from Plaintiff, which has prejudiced them in fully preparing a complete 3 pretrial statement. (Doc. No. 61, p. 11.) 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 6 why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s 7 order and Local Rules and for failure to prosecute this action; and 8 2. Plaintiff is warned that the failure to respond to this order or to show good cause will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice. 9 10 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ March 1, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 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?