ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 15

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, District Judge.

On September 14, 2018, pro se plaintiff Milos Leubner filed this action against defendants County of Lake, Dennis Keithly, and Michael Penhall, raising various complaints related to Leubner's 2016 arrest. After Magistrate Judge Robert Illman granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, defendants were served and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss on December 6, 2018. Leubner's opposition was due on December 20, 2018. Though dated December 18, 2018, on December 24, the court received a stipulation to extend Leubner's time to file an opposition to January 14, 2019, and defendants' time to file a reply to January 21, 2019. On January 4, 2019, the court entered an order adopting that briefing schedule. To date, Leubner has not filed an opposition or Statement of Non-opposition as required by L.R. 7-3, and defendants have not filed a reply.

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for his failure to oppose defendants' motion. Plaintiff shall file a response to this order by February 4, 2019, explaining his failure to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's response must also be accompanied by his opposition to defendants' motion or a Statement of Non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order in a timely fashion will result in dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute, and to comply with a court order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

This order should not be taken as an indication that the court will necessarily accept plaintiff's late submission. However, if it does, defendants will be provided an opportunity to file a reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.