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

Opinion

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