Martinez v. Evans et al

Filing 29

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER OR FACE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on November 19, 2010. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2010)

Martinez v. Evans et al

Doc. 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL EVANS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ______________________________ ) ERNESTO S. MARTINEZ, No. C 09-0069 MMC (PR) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER OR FACE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

On January 8, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, plaintiff alleged the violation of his constitutional rights by correctional officers at Salinas Valley State Prison, where plaintiff was incarcerated when the events at issue in the complaint occurred. After plaintiff filed an amended complaint, the Court, by order filed April 19, 2010, directed defendants to file either a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, and informed plaintiff that he must file opposition to defendants' motion no later than thirty days from the filing date of the motion. On September 17, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and, alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Although more than thirty days have passed from the date the motion to dismiss was filed, plaintiff has not filed opposition thereto. Nor has plaintiff communicated with the Court for fourteen months, his last communication occurring on

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

September 22, 2009, when he filed his amended complaint. Further, the Court recently was apprised that plaintiff has been released on parole. In its April 19, 2010 order, the Court informed plaintiff of his continuing obligation to prosecute this action and to apprise the Court of his current address, as follows: It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Order at 6:3-6.) As noted, plaintiff no longer is incarcerated and has not filed opposition to defendants' dispositive motion or otherwise communicated with the Court for a period of fourteen months. Consequently, the Court, in the interests of the just and efficient resolution of this matter, will require plaintiff to inform the Court whether he intends to proceed with the prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows: Within twenty days of the date this order is filed, plaintiff shall inform the Court whether he intends to proceed with the prosecution of this action and, if so, whether he seeks an extension of time to file opposition to defendants' dispositive motion. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the above-titled action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 19, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2