(PC) Davis v. State of California

E.D. California

(PC) Davis v. State of California

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 27, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-00832·Unknown

Opinion

JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 40) Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Roberts in her individual capacity for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the alleged incident of food tampering. On June 22, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 40-1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of no opposition was therefore due on or before July 16, 2020. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s June 22, 2020, motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

JEROME MARKIEL DAVIS, Case No. 1:18-cv-00832-DAD-BAM (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., (ECF No. 40) Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Jerome Markiel Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Roberts in her individual capacity for deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment, arising from the alleged incident of food tampering. On June 22, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 40.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 40-1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of no opposition was therefore due on or before July 16, 2020. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s June 22, 2020, motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Davis v. State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

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

Opinion

Related