(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al
ORDER discharging Order to Show Cause and extending time for Plaintiff to respond to First Screening Order 9 - 13 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/9/2019. 21-Day Deadline.(Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Case No.: 1:18-cv-01743-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FIRST
On April 2, 2019, the Court issued a screening order in which it granted Plaintiff leave to
file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) At Plaintiff’s request, the Court granted an extension of
time to respond to the screening order. (Doc. 10, 11.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint
or otherwise respond to the Court’s order by the extended deadline. Thus, the Court issued an
order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the
Court’s order and prosecute this action. (Doc. 12.)
Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC indicating that he believed an administrative appeal
would be granted and that, when the administrative appeal was ultimately denied, he sought legal
advice on how to proceed.1 (Doc. 13.) He states that he did not have sufficient time between the
administrative-appeal denial and the screening-order deadline to receive the solicited advice.
Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS:
1. The order to show cause that issued on August 21, 2019, (Doc. 12) is
2. Within 21 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first
amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the April 2, 2019
screening order or, in the alternative, file a notice of voluntary dismissal.
The Court notes that multiple months have passed since the issuance of its screening
order. If Plaintiff fails to comply with the present order, the Court will dismiss this action
for failure to obey a court order and for failure to state a cognizable claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 9, 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In his response, Plaintiff states that he is transgender male and requested that the Court address him with
male pronouns. The Court does so here.
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?