(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections

E.D. California

(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections

DecidedFebruary 4, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-01769

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SHANE MONROE BOWDEN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01769-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et.al., ) [ECF No. 5] 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Shane Monroe Bowden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of 21 signature as required by Local Rule 131 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (ECF No. 5.) 22 Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury with an original signature 23 within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and the time to do so has 24 now expired. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of … a party to comply … with any order of the Court 26 may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 27 within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and 28 1 || prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 2 || Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 4 || service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to 5 || comply with a court order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 8 || Dated: _ February 4, 2020 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 SHANE MONROE BOWDEN, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-01769-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 13 v. ) SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF ) CORRECTIONS, et.al., ) [ECF No. 5] 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 )

18 Plaintiff Shane Monroe Bowden is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On December 23, 2019, the Court issued an order striking Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of 21 signature as required by Local Rule 131 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (ECF No. 5.) 22 Plaintiff was directed to file a complaint, signed under penalty of perjury with an original signature 23 within thirty days. (Id.) Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order and the time to do so has 24 now expired. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of … a party to comply … with any order of the Court 26 may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 27 within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and 28 1 || prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability 2 || Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 3 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 4 || service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to 5 || comply with a court order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 8 || Dated: _ February 4, 2020 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(PC) Bowden v. California Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-bowden-v-california-department-of-corrections-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack