Kirk Harris v. T. Engels

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 19-5590-PA (KK) Date: March 23, 2021 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEB TAYLOR Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner: Attorney(s) Present for Respondent: None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to File a Status Report On June 26, 2019,2 Plaintiff, an inmate at California State Prison – Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”), filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt”) 1. The sole claim remaining in the Complaint alleges denial of access to courts against defendants T. Engles, A. Porter, E. Rocke, and A. Friedman (collectively, “Defendants”), who are psychologists and librarians at CSP-LAC. See dkt. 12. On October 5, 2020, Defendants filed an Answer. Dkts. 54, 55. On October 6, 2020, the Court issued a Case Management and Scheduling Order, which required, among other things, the parties to file and serve a status report no later than March 8, 2021. Dkt. 56 at 3. On March 8, 2021, defendants Rocke, Friedman, and Porter filed a status report. Dkt. 61. As of this date, Plaintiff and defendant Engles have not filed a status report as required by the Case Management and Scheduling Order. 1 Although Plaintiff named “T. Engels” as a defendant, it appears the correct spelling of defendant’s name is “T. Engles.” See dkt. 55. 2 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner 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”). While Plaintiff would be entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule, the Court will use the date the Court received the Complaint as the filing date for purposes of this Order because the Complaint is undated. Accordingly, on or before April 6, 2021, Plaintiff and defendant Engles are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE in writing why they have failed to file a status report as required by the Case Management and Scheduling Order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to timely file a response to this Order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for his failure to comply with Court orders and failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.