Murphy (ID 0110894) v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 12

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: On or before March 1, 2017, plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, to Judge Crow why this case should not be dismissed forlack of prosecution, as plaintiff has not filed his Second Amended Complaint, which was due on Ja nuary 6, 2017. His Second Amended Complaint is also due on or before March 1, 2017. Failure to respond may result in the dismissal of plaintiff's case without further notice. Signed by Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse on 02/08/17. Mailed to pro se party Tyrone Murphy by regular mail. (smnd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS TYRONE MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 16-3134-SAC-DJW STATE OF KANSAS, et al., Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE On December 14, 2016, the Court entered an order construing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint as a habeas claim—as opposed to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint requests his release from imprisonment. (Doc. 11.) Therefore, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint that used the proper form habeas complaint (which it sent along with a copy of the Court’s order) on or before January 6, 2017. Plaintiff did not file a Second Amended Complaint, and he did not request additional time in which to do so. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that on or before March 1, 2017, Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, to Judge Crow why this case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution, as Plaintiff has not filed his Second Amended Complaint, which was due on January 6, 2017. His Second Amended Complaint is also due on or before March 1, 2017. Failure to respond may result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated February 8, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ David J. Waxse David J. Waxse U.S. 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?