Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of California

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:21-cv-6656-VAP (MAR) Date: November 16, 2021 Title: Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE James Munoz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: MOTION TO PROCEED IFP, DKT. 2

On August 7, 2021, Plaintiff constructively filed1 a Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”) and a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. ECF Docket Nos. (“Dkt(s).”) 1; 2. On August 16, 2021, the instant action was transferred from the Eastern District of California to the Central District of California. Dkts. 3; 4. On August 26, 2021, the Court issued a Minute Order ordering Plaintiff to reply with additional information about Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. Dkt. 6. On October 6, 2021, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) regarding Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP. Dkt. 7.

To date, Plaintiff has failed to reply to either the Court’s August 26, 2021 Minute Order or the Court’s October 6, 2021 OSC. Before dismissing the Complaint, however, the Court will afford Plaintiff an additional opportunity to reply to the Court’s August 26, 2021 Minute Order.

Accordingly, within twenty-one (21) days, by December 7, 2021, Plaintiff must address the issues identified in the Court’s August 26, 2021 Minute Order. The Clerk of Court is instructed to include both a copy of the Court’s August 26, 2021 Minute Order, Dkt. 6, as well as a new Form CV-73P for Plaintiff’s convenience.

Plaintiff is expressly warned that his failure to timely comply with this Order will result in denial of his in forma pauperis application and/or dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer jm

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”).