Maughs v. Shasta County Sheriff, et al.
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 11/6/17, ORDERING that plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this action. (Kastilahn, A)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTOPHER ROBIN MAUGHS,
SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF, et. al.,
Plaintiff, who is proceeding in propria persona, brings this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 26, 2017, the court issued an Order Setting Status
Conference. In that order, the court set a Status Conference to be held on November 1, 2017 at
10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. All parties were ordered to appear through counsel or in
person if acting without counsel. The parties were also ordered to submit a status report no later
than seven days prior to the Conference. Defendant filed a status report on October 25, 2017,
and served the same on plaintiff. Plaintiff, who is not represented in this case by counsel, did not
file a status report. On November 1, 2017, the court held the Status Conference. Defense
counsel, Gary Brickwood was present in court. Plaintiff did not appear.
In the status report filed, the defense suggests it may be appropriate to stay this
case due to underlying criminal proceedings against plaintiff in the Shasta County Court.
However, prior to entertaining whether a stay is appropriate in this matter, the court will require
plaintiff to show his intention of continuing in this action. As plaintiff has not followed court
order nor appeared at the court ordered status conference, it would appear that plaintiff is no
longer interested in pursuing this action. If he is, plaintiff will be required to respond to this
order and to inform the court as to the status of the underlying criminal proceedings and whether
a stay would be appropriate. If no response to this order is filed, the court will assume plaintiff is
no longer interested in pursuing this action.
Accordingly, plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of
this order, why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this action. In his
response, plaintiff shall inform the court as to the status of the underlying criminal proceedings
against him in the Shasta County Court, and to inform the court as to whether a stay would be
appropriate. Plaintiff is warned that failure to respond to this order may result in dismissal of the
action for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 6, 2017
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?