(PC) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel

E.D. California

(PC) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel

DecidedSeptember 17, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-00989

StatusUnknown

This text of (PC) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel ((PC) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel) 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) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE OWEN DUSTIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR TO 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED PERSONNEL, IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 7) 16 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 17

18 Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff initiated the instant action in the United States District Court 21 for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2019, the instant action was 22 transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 4.) On July 22, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either 23 submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or, in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing 24 fee for this action, within forty-five days of the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 7.) 25 However, the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s July 22, 2019 order has 26 passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the 27 $400.00 filing fee, or otherwise responded in any way to the Court’s order. 28 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of ... a party to comply ... with any order of the 2 | Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 3 | or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with 4 | court orders and prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 | (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 8 EITHER: 9 a. Submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis; OR 10 b. Pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action; OR 11 c. Show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 12 comply with the Court’s July 22, 2019 order; 13 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis by a prisoner; and 15 3. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 16 recommendation to the District Judge that the instant action be dismissed for 17 failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 20 | Dated: _September 16, 2019 _ Oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 DALE OWEN DUSTIN, Case No. 1:19-cv-00989-LJO-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PAY FILING FEE OR TO 14 KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED PERSONNEL, IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 7) 16 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 17

18 Plaintiff Dale Owen Dustin is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff initiated the instant action in the United States District Court 21 for the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2019, the instant action was 22 transferred to this Court. (ECF No. 4.) On July 22, 2019, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either 23 submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or, in the alternative, pay the $400.00 filing 24 fee for this action, within forty-five days of the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 7.) 25 However, the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s July 22, 2019 order has 26 passed, and Plaintiff has not submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis, paid the 27 $400.00 filing fee, or otherwise responded in any way to the Court’s order. 28 1 Local Rule 110 provides that “[flailure of ... a party to comply ... with any order of the 2 | Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute 3 | or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, a plaintiff’s failure to comply with 4 | court orders and prosecute their action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine 5 | (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226-29 (9th Cir. 2006). 6 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 7 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall 8 EITHER: 9 a. Submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis; OR 10 b. Pay the $400.00 filing fee for this action; OR 11 c. Show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for failure to 12 comply with the Court’s July 22, 2019 order; 13 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff a blank application to proceed in forma 14 pauperis by a prisoner; and 15 3. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a 16 recommendation to the District Judge that the instant action be dismissed for 17 failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 20 | Dated: _September 16, 2019 _ Oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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) Dustin v. Kern Valley State Prison Personnel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pc-dustin-v-kern-valley-state-prison-personnel-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack