Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Moneyham v. U.S., EDCV 17-329-JVS (KK). (2019)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20190304555 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE KENLY KIYA KATO , Magistrate Judge . On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a Complaint against defendants United States of America, Escamilla, Herrera, Jimenez, Marroquin, Olmos, Price, and Valencia ("Defendants") pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics (" Bivens "), 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). ECF Docket No. ("Dkt") 1. On August 31, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer. Dkt. 55. On Septemb
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a Complaint against defendants United States of America, Escamilla, Herrera, Jimenez, Marroquin, Olmos, Price, and Valencia ("Defendants") pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics ("Bivens"), 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971). ECF Docket No. ("Dkt") 1.

On August 31, 2018, Defendants filed an Answer. Dkt. 55.

On September 4, 2018, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order which required, among other things, the parties to file and serve a status report no later than January 31, 2019. Dkt. 56 at 3. On January 16, 2019, the action was stayed. Dkt. 60. On February 6, 2019, the stay was lifted and all deadlines were tolled by twenty-one days. Dkt. 61. Therefore, the parties' status report was due no later than February 21, 2019. As of this date, the parties have not complied with the Case Case 5:17-cv-00329-JVS-KK Document 62 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:367 Management and Scheduling Order.

Accordingly, on or before March 15, 2019, Plaintiff and Defendants are (a) ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why they have failed to file the status report as required by the Case Management and Scheduling Order; or (b) file a Joint Status Report. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a response to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Defendants are similarly cautioned failure to timely respond to this Order may result in entry of default, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a), and/or sanctions.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer