Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections

C.D. California

Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections

DecidedSeptember 6, 2022

Docket5:22-cv-01105

StatusUnknown

This text of Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections (Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01105-DOC-MRW Document 8 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:106 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 22-1105 DOC (MRW) Date September 6, 2022 Title Poslof v. CDCR

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. In July 2022, Judge Wilner issued a detailed order screening this pro se civil rights action. (Docket # 5.) The Court’s July order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for various procedural and substantive defects. The order further required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or dismiss this action by August 12. However, the Court received no further submission from Plaintiff by or after the due date.1

2. The Court could rightly terminate the action today under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to a self-represented prisoner, the Court instead ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may cure this OSC by filing a statement explaining his failure to comply with the Court’s previous order and submitting either a voluntary dismissal of the action or an amended complaint.

3. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by October 11.

Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

1 The assigned district judge granted Plaintiff’s separate application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket # 6, 7.) Plaintiff’s IFP submission did not address any of the problems that Judge Wilner identified with the complaint.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case 5:22-cv-01105-DOC-MRW Document 8 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:106 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 22-1105 DOC (MRW) Date September 6, 2022 Title Poslof v. CDCR

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. In July 2022, Judge Wilner issued a detailed order screening this pro se civil rights action. (Docket # 5.) The Court’s July order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for various procedural and substantive defects. The order further required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or dismiss this action by August 12. However, the Court received no further submission from Plaintiff by or after the due date.1

2. The Court could rightly terminate the action today under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to a self-represented prisoner, the Court instead ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may cure this OSC by filing a statement explaining his failure to comply with the Court’s previous order and submitting either a voluntary dismissal of the action or an amended complaint.

3. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by October 11.

Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

1 The assigned district judge granted Plaintiff’s separate application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket # 6, 7.) Plaintiff’s IFP submission did not address any of the problems that Judge Wilner identified with the complaint.

CV-90 (10/08) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr v. California Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lonnie-lee-poslof-sr-v-california-department-of-corrections-cacd-2022.

Opinion

3. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by October 11.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack