Muhammad v. Komin et al

Filing 28

ORDER discharging 25 Order to Show Cause; setting Scheduling Conference and directing Clerk to assign District Judge signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/28/2017. Case assigned to District Judge, Dale A. Drozd. Plaintiff's Initial Disclosures due within 30-Days. Initial Scheduling Conference set for 2/7/2018 at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.(Lundstrom, T)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MAURICE MUHAMMAD,

5

Plaintiff,

6

KOMIN, et al.,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE

vs.

7

1:15-cv-01373-EPG (PC)

8

Defendants.

9

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN
DISTRICT JUDGE

10

A. Background

11

Maurice Muhammad (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

12

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on

13

two claims in the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their

14

individual capacities for violation of the First Amendment free exercise clause, as well as

15

against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their official capacities for violation of RLUIPA.

16

(ECF No. 16.)

17

On September 10, 2015, the Court issued an informational order identifying specific

18

rules unique to pro se prisoner civil rights actions in this District. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was

19

warned that failure to comply with the Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the

20

Local Rules “will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the

21

case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).” (Id.) Plaintiff was further warned that failure to

22

maintain a current address on the docket would result in dismissal of the case. (Id.)

23

On June 28, 2017, the Court entered an order requiring initial disclosures and setting

24

mandatory scheduling conference for October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) The parties were ordered

25

to exchange initial disclosures within 30 days of the order and be prepared to discuss a range of

26

issues at the mandatory scheduling conference. (Id.)

27

scheduling conference statement confirming the date that initial disclosures were served and

28

any deficiencies in either party’s disclosures. (Id.)
1

The parties were ordered to file a

1

It does not appear that Plaintiff has complied with any of the directives of the Court’s

2

June 28, 2017 Order. First, there is no indication that Plaintiff has made initial disclosures.

3

Defense counsel confirmed at the October 2, 2017 hearing that she has not received any type of

4

communication from Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff did not file a scheduling conference statement,

5

as directed. Third, Plaintiff did not appear at the October 2, 2017 mandatory scheduling

6

conference. Last, mail sent to Plaintiff on June 28, 2017 was returned as undeliverable.

7

On October 3, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause why this case should not

8

be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. Plaintiff was

9

ordered to file a written response within 30 days. (ECF No. 25.)

10

B. Response October 3, 2017 Order to Show Cause

11

Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 26.)

12

He indicated that he had been released from prison and was suffering from mental illness and

13

homelessness. Therefore, he was unable to comply with the directives of the Court’s June 28,

14

2017 Order. Plaintiff indicates that he is attempting to find a private attorney to assist with his

15

case.

16
17

Defendants oppose the discharge of the Order to Show Cause and request dismissal.
(ECF No. 27.)

18

C. Order

19

Although there is a substantial record of noncompliance with Court directives, the Court

20

does not find sufficient basis at this time to recommend dismissal of the action. Plaintiff should

21

be aware, however, that any further compliance failures will likely result in dismissal of this

22

case.

23

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

24

1) The October 3, 2017 Order to Show Cause is DISCHARGED;

25

2) The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s June 28, 2017 Order

26
27
28

(ECF No. 21);
3) Plaintiff shall make initial disclosures, as described in the June 28 Order, within 30
days of this Order;
2

1

4) An Initial Scheduling Conference will be held on February 7, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. in

2

Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. Parties have leave

3

to appear by phone. To join the conference, each party is directed to call the

4

toll−free telephone number (888) 251−2909 and use Access Code 1024453;

5

5) The Clerk's Office is directed to randomly assign a Fresno District Judge to this

6
7

matter; and
6) Failure to comply with this Order will result in dismissal of the case.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 28, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3