Leon Atkins v. Linesey McDowell

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 17, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00574
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No.: 5:23-cv-00574-FWS-MAA Date: August 17, 2023 Title: Leon Atkins v. Linesey McDowell et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On March 27, 2023, Plaintiff Leon Atkins (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint and Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (“IFP Request”). (Dkts. 1, 2.) On May 19, 2023, the court postponed ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP Request and ordered that Plaintiff submit a certified copy of a trust fund statement for the last six months within thirty (30) days of the Order, or by June 19, 2023. (Dkt. 5.) On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a second IFP Request attaching two documents: (1) an order slip from the Robert Presley Detention Center showing that Plaintiff purchased an “indigent kit” for $0.00 on May 2, 2023; and (2) another order slip showing that Plaintiff purchased a second “indigent kit” for $0.00 on May 25, 2023. (Dkt. 7.) Neither document is a certified copy of a trust fund statement for the last six months. (Id.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed any additional documents supplying a certified copy of a trust fund statement. (See generally Dkt.)

Accordingly, the court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than September 18, 2023, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff may discharge the Order to Show Cause by filing a certified copy of a trust fund statement for the last six months that complies with the court’s May 19, 2023, Order. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 5:23-cv-00574-FWS-MAA Date: August 17, 2023 Title: Leon Atkins v. Linesey McDowell et al. doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________