Hypolite v. Zariora et al

Filing 67

ORDER REQUIRING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Within Fifteen Days Why Sanctions Should Not be Imposed for Failure to Comply With the Court's Scheduling Order, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/23/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AVERY HYPOLITE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
R. ZAMORA,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01199-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS WHY
SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S
SCHEDULING ORDER
[ECF No. 59]

Plaintiff Avery Hypolite is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant R. Zamora for use of

20

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and is set for a telephonic trial confirmation

21

hearing on April 13, 2017, and a jury trial on May 23, 2017.
On November 4, 2016, the Court issued the Second Scheduling Order, which required Plaintiff

22
23

to file a pretrial statement on or before February 13, 2017. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s

24

order to file a pretrial statement.1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

25
26
27
28

Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show

cause sanctions should not be imposed for failing to comply with the scheduling order; and
1

On February 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses as required by the Second
Scheduling Order; however, there is no mention of the filing of a pretrial statement. (ECF No. 66.)

1

1

2.

The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 23, 2017

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2