ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.

A. Background

Maurice Muhammad ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is proceeding on two claims in the First Amended Complaint against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their individual capacities for violation of the First Amendment free exercise clause, as well as against Defendants Komin and Mitchell in their official capacities for violation of RLUIPA. (ECF No. 16.)

On September 10, 2015, the Court issued an informational order identifying specific rules unique to pro se prisoner civil rights actions in this District. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply with the Order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules "will be grounds for imposition of sanctions which may include dismissal of the case. Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)." (Id.) Plaintiff was further warned that failure to maintain a current address on the docket would result in dismissal of the case. (Id.)

On June 28, 2017, the Court entered an order requiring initial disclosures and setting mandatory scheduling conference for October 2, 2017. (ECF No. 21.) The parties were ordered to exchange initial disclosures within 30 days of the order and be prepared to discuss a range of issues at the mandatory scheduling conference. (Id.) The parties were ordered to file a scheduling conference statement confirming the date that initial disclosures were served and any deficiencies in either party's disclosures. (Id.)

It does not appear that Plaintiff has complied with any of the directives of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order. First, there is no indication that Plaintiff has made initial disclosures. Defense counsel confirmed at the October 2, 2017 hearing that she has not received any type of communication from Plaintiff. Second, Plaintiff did not file a scheduling conference statement, as directed. Third, Plaintiff did not appear at the October 2, 2017 mandatory scheduling conference. Last, mail sent to Plaintiff on June 28, 2017 was returned as undeliverable.

On October 3, 2017, the Court ordered Plaintiff to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders. Plaintiff was ordered to file a written response within 30 days. (ECF No. 25.)

B. Response October 3, 2017 Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause on November 6, 2017. (ECF No. 26.) He indicated that he had been released from prison and was suffering from mental illness and homelessness. Therefore, he was unable to comply with the directives of the Court's June 28, 2017 Order. Plaintiff indicates that he is attempting to find a private attorney to assist with his case.

Defendants oppose the discharge of the Order to Show Cause and request dismissal. (ECF No. 27.)

C. Order

Although there is a substantial record of noncompliance with Court directives, the Court does not find sufficient basis at this time to recommend dismissal of the action. Plaintiff should be aware, however, that any further compliance failures will likely result in dismissal of this case.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

IT IS SO ORDERED.