Filed: Nov. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 78) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Michael Hernandez Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Mims, Gutierrez, Palacios, and Nemoto for alleged
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 78) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Michael Hernandez Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Mims, Gutierrez, Palacios, and Nemoto for allegedl..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 78)
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Michael Hernandez Gonzalez ("Plaintiff"), who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendants Mims, Gutierrez, Palacios, and Nemoto for allegedly failing to protect Plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. All parties have consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 4, 34, 70.)
On August 23, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action for Plaintiff's failure to comply with Court orders, or alternatively to amend the discovery and scheduling order. (ECF No. 74.) On September 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document which appeared to indicate either his non-opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, or to the hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, or both. (ECF No. 77.) Defendants did not file a reply.
Based on the ambiguity of the filing and Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court ordered Plaintiff, within twenty-one days, to clarify in writing whether he did not oppose the granting of the motion to dismiss or whether he intended to proceed with the litigation. (ECF No. 78.) Plaintiff was explicitly warned that his failure to respond to the Court's order would result in dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2.)
The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the Court's order has expired. To date, the Court has received no further communication from Plaintiff, and none of the Court's orders have been returned as undeliverable.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by written response within fourteen (14) days of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is warned that if the response does not show good cause, this action will be dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
