McRae v. Dikran et al

Filing 110

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF to SHOW CAUSE Why Defendant Kevin Cuong Nguyen Should Not be Dismissed From This Action for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute Against Him, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/27/2021. Show Cause Response due within 30 days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL SCOTT McRAE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
BAIRAMIAN DIKRAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

1:16-01066-NONE-GSA-PC
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO
SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT
KEVIN CUONG NGUYEN SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION
FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AGAINST HIM
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

Michael Scott McRae (“Plaintiff”) is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

21

forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403

22

U.S. 388 (1971). This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on

23

March 9, 2018, against defendants Dr. Dikran Bairamian,1 Dr. Kevin Cuong Nguyen, and Dr.

24

David Betts, for inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment and state law claims for

25

medical malpractice and medical battery. (ECF No. 14.)

26
27
1

28

In his original Complaint, Plaintiff referred to this defendant as Dr. Bairamian, Dikran, M.D.
(ECF No. 1.) The court entered the defendant’s name as Bairamian Dikran. (Court docket.) In his Answer to the
complaint defense counsel clarified that this defendant’s name is Dikran Bairamian. (ECF No. 32.)
1

1

On March 2, 2021, the court issued an order finding service of the Second Amended

2

Complaint appropriate and directing service of process upon defendant Dr. Kevin Cuong Nguyen

3

in this action. (ECF No. 97.) On March 10, 2021, the United States Marshal filed a return of

4

service executed as to defendant Nguyen, indicating that defendant Nguyen was personally

5

served with process on March 10, 2021. (ECF No. 99.) Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of

6

Civil Procedure, defendant Nguyen had 21 days in which to file an answer or motion under Rule

7

12 in response to Plaintiff’s complaint. More than 60 days have passed and defendant Nguyen

8

has not filed an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff’s complaint.

9

(See court record.) Plaintiff has not filed a motion under Rule 55. (Id.)

10

II.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

11

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why

12

defendant Dr. Kevin Cuong Nguyen should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s

13

failure to prosecute against defendant Nguyen.

14

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a

16

written response to the court, showing cause why defendant Dr. Kevin Cuong

17

Nguyen should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to

18

prosecute against defendant Nguyen; and

19

2.

20

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that
this case be dismissed.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 27, 2021

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2