(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections

E.D. California

(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. California·Decided February 4, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-01769·Unknown

Opinion

SHANE MONROE BOWDEN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01769-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER CORRECTIONS, et.al., ) [ECF No. 5] ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Shane Monroe Bowden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of signature as required by Local Rule 131 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury with an original signature within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and the time to do so has now expired. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of … a party to comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. A (ee Dated: _ February 4, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

SHANE MONROE BOWDEN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01769-SAB (PC) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER CORRECTIONS, et.al., ) [ECF No. 5] ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

Plaintiff Shane Monroe Bowden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of signature as required by Local Rule 131 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury with an original signature within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and the time to do so has now expired. Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of … a party to comply … with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order. A (ee Dated: _ February 4, 2020 OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections ((PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

In Re Phenylpropanolamine (Ppa) Products Liability Litigation, Shantell Allen, on Behalf of Allen, Vera v. Bayer Corporation, Leon Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corporation, Leslie Ackel v. Bayer Corporation, Bridgett Arrington v. Bayer Corporation, Calvin McGriggs v. Delaco Company, Betty Clinton v. Delaco Company, Donna Sasseen v. Ide Interstate Inc., Elizabeth Page v. Bayer Corporation, Marie Riley v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Keva K. Alford, on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Henry Dexter, and Eddie Bullock v. Wyeth, Obo Itself and Its Unincorporated Division, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Fka Whitehall-Robins Healthcare Formerly Known as American Home Products Corporation, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bobby Holmes v. Bayer Corporation, Melody McDaniel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Samantha Samuels v. Bayer Corporation

460 F.3d 1217 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Opinion

Related