Rhodes v. Fresno County, et al.

Filing 15

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed For Failure to Comply With a Court Order and Failure to State a Cognizable Claim For Relief 14 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/11/16: 30-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PERCY LEE RHODES,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

FRESNO COUNTY, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

22

25
26
27

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER AND
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
FOR RELIEF
[ECF No. 14]

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
the United States Magistrate Judge on November 23, 2015. Local Rule 302.
On February 2, 2016, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim
under section 1983 and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

23
24

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01714-SAB (PC)

Plaintiff Percy Lee Rhodes is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

More than thirty days have since passed, and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise
responded to the Court’s order. As a result, there is no pleading on file which sets forth any claims
upon which relief may be granted. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order,
Plaintiff is directed to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Failure to comply with
///

28
1

1

this order will result in the action being dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable

2

claim for relief.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

March 11, 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