Smith v. Goss, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Submit Completed Service Documents or Show Cause why this Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/05/2019. Twenty-One Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LAWRENCE CHRISTOPHER SMITH,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
CHANELO, et al.,

15

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
SUBMIT COMPLETED SERVICE
DOCUMENTS OR SHOW CAUSE WHY
THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

Defendants.
(ECF No. 19)

16

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Case No. 1:16-cv-01356-LJO-BAM (PC)

Plaintiff Lawrence Christopher Smith (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

19

and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action

20

proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint for claims of excessive force against Defendants

21

Sotelo, Chanelo, Wattree, Hunt, Castro, Gonzalez, Ramirez and Rodriguez, related to events of

22

March 13, 2013.

23

On June 22, 2018, the Court issued an order authorizing service of Plaintiff’s first

24

amended complaint and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return

25

within thirty days. (ECF No. 19.) The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to comply

26

with the Court’s order would result in dismissal of this action. (Id. at 3.)

27

On July 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from judgment, together with partially

28

completed service documents. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend
1

1

the complaint, supplemental complaint, and a motion for reconsideration, all regarding the

2

Court’s prior order severing certain claims from this action and dismissing other claims. (ECF

3

Nos. 22, 23, 24.) Those motions were resolved by the assigned District Judge’s March 26, 2019

4

order denying Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration and referring this action back to the

5

undersigned for further proceedings. (ECF No. 27.)

6

Due to the pendency of Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration, the first amended

7

complaint has not yet been served. Although Plaintiff submitted completed summons and USM-

8

285 forms for the eight named defendants, Plaintiff has failed to submit the required copies of the

9

amended complaint, as directed by the Court’s June 22, 2018 order. (ECF Nos. 19.) As

10

explained in that order, Plaintiff is required to submit nine (9) copies of the endorsed first

11

amended complaint filed on July 14, 2017. (Id. at 3.)

12
13
14
15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the first amended complaint filed on
July 14, 2017, (ECF No. 12);
2. Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit

16

nine (9) copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed on July 14, 2017; and

17

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for

18

failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 5, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2