(PC) Jaramillo v. Burns

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 RUDIE JARAMILLO, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00666-JLT-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED MAY 28, 2025 13 v. (Doc. 38) 14 JOSEPH BURNES, et al., ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DIRECTED TO 15 Defendants. ANTHONY R. RODRIGUEZ FOR HIS FAILURE TO FILE A RESPONSIVE

17 RESPONSE DEADLINE: JUNE 27, 2025

19 Plaintiff Rudie Jaramillo is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 21 excessive force and First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, 22 Burnes, Garcia, Hernandez, Rodriguez, and Ruiz. 24 The Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate on December 13, 2024. (Doc. 20.) 25 Defendants Barrett, Bartolo, Burnes, Garcia, Hernandez, and Ruiz filed a notice of intent to waive 26 service on January 24, 2025 (Doc. 23); a notice of intent not to waive service was filed 27 concerning Defendant A. Rodriguez that same date (Doc. 24). As to the former Defendants, their 1 occurred on April 3, 2025, making Anthony R. Rodriguez’s answer due no later than April 24, 2 2025. (Doc. 34.) 3 On April 17, 2025, Defendants filed a Request by Special Appearance for a Thirty-Day 4 Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of Defendant A. Rodriguez, 5 accompanied by the Declaration of Brian Lee. (Doc. 35.) 6 On April 18, 2025, the Court issued its Order Granting Defendants’ Request for Extension 7 of Time Within Which to File Responsive Pleading on Behalf of Defendant A. Rodriguez. (Doc. 8 36.) Specifically, Defendants were granted an extension to May 26, 2025, within which to file a 9 responsive pleading on Defendant Rodriguez’s behalf. (Id. at 2.) 10 On May 28, 2025, when a responsive pleading was not filed on Defendant Rodriguez’s 11 behalf, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Regarding Defendants’ Failure to 12 Comply with the Court’s Order Issued April 18, 2025. (Doc. 38.) Defendants were ordered to 13 respond within seven days, addressing why neither Defendant Rodriguez nor counsel for the other 14 Defendants had complied with the Court’s April 18, 2025, Order. (Id. at 2.) 15 On June 3, 2025, the answering Defendants (Barrett, Bartolo, Burns, Garcia, Hernandez, 16 and Ruiz) filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 39.) Briefly stated, they indicate that Defendant 17 Rodriguez has not sought representation by the Attorney General’s Office in this action and 18 therefore a responsive pleading cannot be filed on Rodriguez’s behalf. (Id. at 1-2.) Counsel for 19 the answering Defendants was unable to make contact with Rodriguez because he “does not have 20 an email address, physical address, or telephone number at which Mr. Rodriguez can be reached.” 21 (Id. at 2.) 23 The Court has considered the representations by counsel in responding to the Court’s 24 order to show cause (Docs. 38, 39). Although counsel offers no explanation for why he allowed 25 the May 26 filing deadline to pass without making any filings (such as a request for additional 26 time or a report about his inability to establish communication with Defendant Rodriguez), and, 27 indeed, hardly acknowledges the missed deadline, the Court concludes that counsel’s conduct 1 | the show cause order without imposition of sanctions. See In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec. 2 | Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir. 2007). 3 Defendant Rodriguez has failed to file a responsive pleading in this action. Because 4 | Defendant Rodriguez has not waived service of process, and the United States Marshal appears to 5 | have served a person of suitable age and discretion at a residence associated with Defendant 6 | Rodriguez on April 3, 2025, the Court will provide Defendant Rodriguez with one final 7 | opportunity to appear in this action and to avoid the potential of a default judgment being entered 8 | against him. 10 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows: 11 1. The OSC issued May 28, 2025 (Doc. 38) is DISCHARGED; 12 2. Defendant Rodriguez SHALL show cause in writing, no later than June 27, 2025, 13 why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to file a responsive pleading 14 following service of process. Alternatively, Defendant Rodriguez may file a 15 responsive pleading within that same period; and 16 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve Defendant Rodriguez with a copy of 17 this Order by mail at the address indicated on the USM-285 form filed with the Court 18 on April 9, 2025 (Doc. 34). 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ June 4, 2025 | hr 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28