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)

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