Douglas Lasance v. Warden

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-6501-MCS (MAR) Date: November 30, 2021 Title Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERICA BUSTOS N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) SECOND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On August 3, 2021, Douglas Lasance (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, constructively filed1 a Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1. On September 3, 2021, the Court issued an Order Dismissing the Complaint with Leave to Amend (“ODLA”), granting Plaintiff thirty (30) days to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. 8 at 9–10.

On October 25, 2021, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) giving Plaintiff until November 15, 2021 to show why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 9. Plaintiff was warned that, “[f]ailure to respond to the Court’s Order may result in the dismissal of the action.” Id. (emphasis added). To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s October 25, 2021 OSC.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must respond to the Court’s October 25, 2021 Order, with one (1) of the three (3) options listed in the OSC:

(1) Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s September 3, 2021 ODLA; (2) Plaintiff shall provide the Court with an explanation as to why he has failed to file a First Amended Complaint; or (3) Plaintiff may request a voluntarily dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal form for Plaintiff’s convenience.

Dkt. 9.

Plaintiff must comply within fourteen (14) days of this Order, by December 14, 2021, or this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”). CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-6501-MCS (MAR) Date: November 30, 2021 Title

IT IS SO ORDERED. : Initials of Preparer eb