Hughes v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/2/13 ORDERING that defendant Lawrence Fong is dismissed from this action.(Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

BERNARD HUGHES,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:11-cv-00530 DAD P

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEP’T. OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

/
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF #9.)

19

In the October 16, 2012 screening order the court determined that plaintiff ‘s

20

amended complaint stated a cognizable inadequate medical care claim under the Eighth

21

Amendment against defendants Fong, Malet, Awatani and Street. Plaintiff was ordered to submit

22

documents, including USM-285 forms, for service of the amended complaint on defendants. In

23

an order filed June 10, 2013, the court noted that plaintiff had failed to submit a USM-285 form

24

for defendant Lawrence Fong. (ECF #31.) Plaintiff was then ordered to submit a USM-285 form

25

for defendant Fong within fourteen days from the service of the court’s order and cautioned that

26

if he failed to do so, defendant Fong would be dismissed from this action. More than fourteen
1

1

days have passed and plaintiff has not submitted the USM-285 form or responded in any way to

2

the court’s June 10 order.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Lawrence Fong is

4

dismissed from this action.

5

DATED: July 2, 2013.

6
7
8

DAD:4
hugh530.fong

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