Turner v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Filing 17

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 10/20/10 ordering plaintiff shall show cause in writing within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. (Plummer, M)

(PC) Turner v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Doc. 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed on May 7, 2010, with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. This time was extended, and on June 23, 2010, the court directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiff failed to do so within the time provided, so an order to show cause was issued on August 6, 2010, requiring Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a response within the time provided, which the court construed as a request for additional time. That request was granted, and the order to show cause discharged, on August 26, 2010. Plaintiff was provided an 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER, Plaintiff, vs. CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL GROUP, et al.,

No. CIV S-09-3040-CMK-P

ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

additional 30 days to file his amended complaint. Plaintiff was again warned that failure to file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110. To date, plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall again show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is again warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the action for the reasons outlined above, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See id. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2010 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2