Knapp v. Virk et al

Filing 16

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Follow Court Order and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 6/29/16. 21-Day Deadline. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DAVID KNAPP,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

VIRK, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:15-cv-00961 DLB

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE
15
Plaintiff David Knapp (“Plaintiff”), a state inmate in the custody of the California

16

17 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), is proceeding pro se and in forma
1
18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June

19 25, 2015.
On November 4, 2015, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it with leave to

20

21 amend. Plaintiff received numerous extensions of time, with the last extension granted on May 4,
22 2016. Pursuant to that order, an amended complaint was due within thirty (30) days. Over thirty
23 (30) days have passed and he has not filed an amended complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any he has, why this action

24

25 should not be dismissed for failure to follow a Court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff must
26 file a response to this order within twenty-one (21) days. Plaintiff may also comply by filing an
27 amended complaint pursuant to the November 4, 2015, order.
28

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on July 6, 2015.

1

Failure to follow this order will result in dismissal of this action.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

June 29, 2016

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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