Lucas v. Youngblood et al

Filing 20

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Follow a Court Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/31/2018. (Plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause within fourteen (14) days of this order why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to follow the court's prior order of 6/29/2018. Plaintiff may discharge this order to show cause by filing a first amended complaint within this fourteen-day period in which the home addresses of the various defendants are redacted, along with any other redactions required under Local Rule 140.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN LUCAS,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:18-cv-00654-DAD-JLT
Plaintiff,

v.
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO FOLLOW A COURT ORDER
Fourteen-Day Deadline

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this suit, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

18

Generally speaking, plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to accept custody of his ex-wife after

19

plaintiff subjected her to a citizen’s arrest based on her alleged perjury during a state court civil

20

proceeding, and that this violated his constitutional rights. On June 29, 2018, this court granted a

21

motion by defendants to redact personal information, because plaintiff had included in the

22

complaint the home addresses of a number of the individual defendants. (Doc. Nos. 7, 8.) In that

23

minute order, which was served on plaintiff, the court directed that the complaint would be sealed

24

and that “[p]laintiff shall file an appropriately redacted complaint immediately.” (Doc. Nos. 8, 9.)

25

However, no redacted complaint has been filed.

26

Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ordered to show cause within fourteen (14) days of this

27

order why this case should not be dismissed due to his failure to follow the court’s prior order of

28

June 29, 2018. Plaintiff may discharge this order to show cause by filing a first amended
1

1

complaint within this fourteen-day period in which the home addresses of the various defendants

2

are redacted, along with any other redactions required under Local Rule 140. Plaintiff is

3

cautioned that failing to appropriately respond to this order may result in the imposition of

4

sanctions, including possible dismissal of this action. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

5

1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Thompson v. Housing Auth. of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.

6

1986).

7

Given the above, the hearing on the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 9), originally set for

8

August 7, 2018, is vacated, to be reset following the discharge of this order to show cause.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:

July 31, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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