Huerta v. County of Tulare, et al

Filing 184

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE Why His Claims Against Doe Defendants 1-50 Should not be Dismissed Without Prejudice signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on February 28, 2024. Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of this order to show cause why his claims against Doe Defendants 1-50 should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute, and/or failure to comply with Rule 4(m). 2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an appropriate stipulation for the dismissal of the Doe defendants. (Lopez Amador, Corina)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

RAMIRO HUERTA,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01446-EPG
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY HIS CLAIMS AGAINST DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-50 SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,
RESPONSE DUE WITHIN 21-DAYS
Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff Ramiro Huerta (“Plaintiff”) initiated this civil rights action on October 25, 2017.

19

(ECF No. 1). For the reasons that follow, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why his

20

claims against Doe Defendants 1-50 should not be dismissed without prejudice.

21
22
23
24
25

This case proceeds on Plaintiff’s federal and state law claims against the Tulare County
Sheriff’s Department (“TCSD”), as well as TCSD deputies, Ronald Smith, Michael Coldren,
James Dillon, Salvador Ceja, Hector Hernandez, and Does 1-50. (See ECF Nos. 22, 183).
Discovery concluded in this case on June 15, 2023. (See ECF No. 135 at 2). The Court has
adjudicated Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the deadline to file dispositive
motions has passed. (See ECF Nos. 183, 135 at 2). This case is set for a jury trial beginning on

26
June 18, 2024. (ECF No. 166). However, Doe Defendants 1-50 remain unnamed. Accordingly,
27

based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

28
1

1

1. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of this order to show cause why his claims

2

against Doe Defendants 1-50 should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to

3

prosecute, and/or failure to comply with Rule 4(m).

4

2. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file an appropriate stipulation for the dismissal of the Doe

5

defendants.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 28, 2024

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2