Ricks v. Kamena, 1:15-cv-00715-DAD-BAM (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190419g83
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 55) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kamena for failure to protect and deliberate indifference. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF No. 55) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kamena for failure to protect and deliberate indifference. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation ..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 55)
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kamena for failure to protect and deliberate indifference. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on May 6, 2019, and a jury trial on July 9, 2019.
On September 26, 2018, the Court issued a second scheduling order directing Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement and any motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses on or before April 8, 2019. (ECF No. 55.) This matter was then set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on March 4, 2019. (ECF No. 57.) The case did not settle, and therefore the deadlines set in the Court's second scheduling order remained in effect. (ECF No. 61.) The deadline for Plaintiff's pretrial statement and motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses has expired, and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court's scheduling order or to otherwise communicate with the Court.1
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause by written response why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey the Court's order and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's response is due within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order. If Plaintiff fails to file a response, or the response does not demonstrate good cause, the undersigned will recommend that this matter be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff was reminded of his obligation to keep updated on all Court orders, as well as to consider changing his mailing address to ensure that he receives all of his mail. (ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff has not updated his mailing address since May 9, 2018. (ECF No. 48.) Plaintiff was also previously warned that, as a former prisoner, the prison mailbox rule no longer applies to his filings. (ECF No. 55, p. 3 n.1.) As such, Plaintiff's filings are complete only when the papers are received by the Clerk of the Court, rather than on the date they are mailed.
Source: Leagle
