(PC)Figueroa v. Clark

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 11, 2023
• Docket: 1:19-cv-00968
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN FIGUEROA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 CLARK, et al., (ECF No. 80) 15 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 20 Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallagher, Alfaro, 21 Goss, Juarez, Hence, and Llamas for failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth 22 Amendment and against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallagher, Llamas, and 23 Gamboa for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 24 On December 2, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds 25 that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and Defendants are entitled to qualified 26 immunity. (ECF No. 80.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements 27 for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); 28 Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411– 1 12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 80-1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil 2 Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before 3 December 27, 2022. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion for summary 4 judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff will be 5 permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with 6 prejudice. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 8 RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be 9 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order 10 by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ December 2, 2022 motion 11 for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, 12 this matter will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated: January 10, 2023 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28