Muhammad v. Komin et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/2/2017. Show Cause Response due by 11/6/2017.(Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KOMIN, et al.,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Maurice Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on
two claims in the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their
individual capacities for violation of the First Amendment free exercise clause, as well as
against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their official capacities for violation of RLUIPA.
(ECF No. 16.) Service of process was executed upon the Defendants, who appeared on June 23,
2017. (ECF Nos. 19-20.)
On September 10, 2015, the Court issued an informational order identifying specific
rules unique to pro se prisoner civil rights actions in this District. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was
warned that failure to comply with the Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Local Rules “will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the
case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Id.) Plaintiff was further warned that failure to
maintain a current address on the docket would result in dismissal of the case. (Id.)
On June 28, 2017, the Court entered an order requiring initial disclosures and setting
mandatory scheduling conference for October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) The parties were ordered
to exchange initial disclosures within 30 days of the order and be prepared to discuss a range of
issues at the mandatory scheduling conference. (Id.)
scheduling conference statement confirming the date that initial disclosures were served and
any deficiencies in either party’s disclosures. (Id.)
The parties were ordered to file a
It does not appear that Plaintiff has complied with any of the directives of the Court’s
June 28, 2017 Order. First, there is no indication that Plaintiff has made initial disclosures.
Defense counsel confirmed at the October 2, 2017 hearing that she has not received any type of
communication from Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff did not file a scheduling conference statement,
as directed. Third, Plaintiff did not appear at the October 2, 2017 mandatory scheduling
conference. Last, mail sent to Plaintiff on June 28, 2017 was returned as undeliverable.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should
not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. Plaintiff shall
file a written response no later than November 2, 2017. Failure to respond to this Order will
result in dismissal of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 2, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
It is noted that this Plaintiff may not have received the Court’s June 28, 2017 Order, and this may
explain his noncompliance. Plaintiff has since filed a notice of change of address on September 20, 2017. (ECF
No. 22.) Nonetheless, Plaintiff is responsible for maintaining a current mailing address and staying apprised of
any orders that were filed on the public docket.
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?