McManus v. Yang et al
Filing
11
AMENDED ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action should not be Dismissed for Failure to Comply with a Court Order; Show Cause Response due within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 9/20/2017. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DANNY MCMANUS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
MATT JONES, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:17-cv-00892-SAB (PC)
AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER
[ECF Nos. 9, 10]
Plaintiff Danny McManus is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of
19
the United States Magistrate Judge on July 19, 2017. Local Rule 302.
20
On August 9, 2017, the Court issued an order authorizing service of Plaintiff’s complaint, and
21
requiring Plaintiff to fill out and return the USM-285 forms and summonses within thirty days. (Doc.
22
9.) More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to
23
the order. Therefore, on September 19, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause why the action
24
should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with a court order. However, the
25
Court inadvertently failed to provide a deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the order to show cause.
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service
2
of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed, without
3
prejudice, for failure to comply with a court order.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated:
7
September 20, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?