(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 14

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHELLE CONCEPCION, 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., Defendants. Case No.: 1:18-cv-01743-LJO-JLT (PC) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND EXTENDING TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO FIRST SCREENING ORDER (Docs. 9-13) 21-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 19 On April 2, 2019, the Court issued a screening order in which it granted Plaintiff leave to 20 file a first amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) At Plaintiff’s request, the Court granted an extension of 21 time to respond to the screening order. (Doc. 10, 11.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint 22 or otherwise respond to the Court’s order by the extended deadline. Thus, the Court issued an 23 order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the 24 Court’s order and prosecute this action. (Doc. 12.) 25 26 27 28 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 1 advice on how to proceed.1 (Doc. 13.) He states that he did not have sufficient time between the 2 administrative-appeal denial and the screening-order deadline to receive the solicited advice. Good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The order to show cause that issued on August 21, 2019, (Doc. 12) is 4 DISCHARGED; 5 2. Within 21 days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a first 6 amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the April 2, 2019 7 screening order or, in the alternative, file a notice of voluntary dismissal. 8 The Court notes that multiple months have passed since the issuance of its screening 9 10 11 12 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. 13 Dated: 14 October 9, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 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. 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?