Rodriguez v. Dickenson et al

Filing 9

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with a Court Order; Show Cause Response due in Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/4/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Case No. 1:15-cv-00065-SAB-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT
ORDER

v.

13

K. DICKENSON, et al.,

14

(ECF NO. 8)
Defendants.

15

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
16
Plaintiff Luis Rodriguez is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17

18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction
1
19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On January 21, 2016, the Court screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint, with leave

20

21 to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff was directed to file an
22 amended complaint within thirty days from the date of service. (Id.) The thirty day period has
23 expired, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to the Court’s
24 order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims upon which relief may
25 be granted.
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall show cause within thirty (30) days as to why this action

26

27 should not be dismissed. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action
28

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on February 10, 2015. (ECF No. 4. )

1

1 for failure to comply with a court order and failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief
2 may be granted.
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated:

March 4, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

2