Curtis Andrews v. San Bernardino Police Dept.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 28, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00928
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 23-928 DOC (MRW) Date August 28, 2023 Title Andrews v. Zamora

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. The defense moved to dismiss this pro se civil rights action. (Docket # 10.) The Court informed Plaintiff Andrews of his obligation to respond to the dismissal motion by or before August 18. (Docket # 11.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed anything in response to the dismissal motion.1 (Docket # 13.) 2. The Court could rightly terminate the action today under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to a self-represented prisoner, the Court instead ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to respond to the dismissal motion. 3. Plaintiff may cure this OSC by filing a statement explaining his failure to comply with the Court’s previous scheduling order and submitting either a voluntary dismissal of the action or his substantive response to the defense dismissal motion. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by September 20. Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

1 According to the complaint and IFP application (those are the only documents that Plaintiff has filed in the action), Plaintiff is currently housed at a local detention facility in Adelanto. Owing to familiar delays with custodial mail systems, the Court’s general practice is to informally add a couple of weeks to deadlines established for incarcerated litigants. The defense’s immediate submission of a notice of non-opposition (Docket # 13), while accurate, doesn’t help figure out the reality of whether or not a filing is in the mail from Plaintiff that the Court might accept.