Hector Martin Prieto v. John Doe 1 and John Doe 2

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR MARTIN PRIETO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00650-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. 14 JOHN DOE 1 and JOHN DOE 2, NOVEMBER 14, 2025 DEADLINE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Hector Prieto, a state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights 18 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 30, 2025. (Doc. No. 1). On June 27, 2025, the 19 undersigned screened Plaintiff’s Complaint and found it failed to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9). 20 Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 10). On July 23, 2025, the 21 undersigned screened the FAC and found it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive use 22 of force claim against John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 but failed to state any other claims. (Doc. No. 23 11 at 1). On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice stating that he voluntarily dismisses certain 24 defendants and claims the Court deemed non-cognizable. (Doc. No. 12, “Notice”). All claims 25 deemed non-cognizable were dismissed by operation of law pursuant to Rules 41 and 15 on 26 August 15, 2025. (Doc. No. 13). To facilitate identification of the Doe defendants, the Court 27 permitted Plaintiff to complete subpoenas to subpoena documents from CDCR. (Doc. No. 13). 28 Instead of returning the subpoenas, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 21, 1 | 2025. (Doc. No. 14, “SAC”). 2 On September 2, 2025, the Court screened the SAC and afforded Plaintiff two options to 3 | exercise no later than October 3, 2025: (1) file a ‘““Notice Under Rule 41 and Rule 15” that he 4 | agrees to proceed on the SAC as screened thereby dismissing the claims and Defendants for the 5 || reasons stated in this Order; or (2) file a “Notice to Stand on Second Amended Complaint” 6 | subject to the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss the claims and Defendants 7 | deemed not cognizable. (Doc. No 16 at 9-10). The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that if he 8 | “fails to timely respond to this Court Order or seek an extension of time to comply” the 9 | undersigned “will recommend that the district court dismiss this case as a sanction for Plaintiffs 10 | failure to comply with a court order and prosecute this action.” (Ud. at 11). The October 3, 2025 11 | deadline has lapsed and Plaintiff has not elected responded to the September 2, 2025 Order or 12 | otherwise moved for an extension of time. (See generally docket). 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 14 | when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 15 | P.41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 16 | omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 17 | (‘[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 18 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 19 | permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 20 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 21 No later than November 14, 2025, Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s previous 22 | September 2, 2025 Order and elect one of the two options, or show cause why the Court should 23 || not recommend that this case be dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute 24 | this action and/or his failure to timely comply with the Court’s September 2, 2025 Order. | Dated: _ October 24, 2025 Mihaw. Mh. Bareh fackte 26 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE