(PC) Navarro v. StClair et al

Filing 42

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 4/7/2022. Show Cause Response due within TWENTY-ONE DAYS. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GILBERT NAVARRO,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

J. ST. CLAIR, et al.,

15

Case No. 1:20-cv-00524-JLT-SKO (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
21-DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
On February 25, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds

17
18

that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and thus Defendants are entitled to judgment as a

19

matter of law. (Doc. 38.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), Plaintiff had 21 days to file an opposition

20

or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. To date, Plaintiff has failed to do so.1
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 21 days, to show cause in writing why

21
22

this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. Alternatively, within that same

23

time, Plaintiff may file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for

24

summary judgment.

25

//

26

//

27

Following the filing of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, on March 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Change of Address, indicating he had been released from custody and was residing in Santa Maria, California. (Doc.
41.) The notice was dated and signed on February 28, 2022. (Id.)
1

28

1
2

Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this case be
dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

April 7, 2022

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2