Phillip Lee Brock v. State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00379
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Document 7 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:108 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-00379-DOC(MAR) Date: March 24, 2022 Title Phillip Lee Brock v. State of California et al Present: The Honorable: MARGO A. ROCCONI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ERICA BUSTOS N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On January 7, 2022, Phillip Lee Brock (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and pro se, constructively filed1 a Complaint (“Complaint”) against the “State of California/Valley State Prison Healthcare” (“Defendant”). ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 3. On February 4, 2022, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend (“ODLA”), granting Plaintiff until March 7, 2022, to either: (1) file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”); (2) file a notice that he intends to stand on the allegations in the Complaint; or (3) voluntarily dismiss the action. Dkt. 6 at 8–10. The ODLA cautioned Plaintiff that failure to timely file a response to the ODLA “may result” in the dismissal of the Complaint for failure to prosecute. Id. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file a FAC or otherwise correspond with the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to show cause in writing within twenty-one (21) days of this Order, by April 13, 2022, why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

The Court will consider any of the following three (3) options to be an appropriate response to this OSC:

1. Plaintiff shall file a First Amended Complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the Court’s February 4, 2022 ODLA; 2. Plaintiff shall provide the Court with an explanation as to why he has failed to file a First Amended Complaint; or 3. Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk is directed to attach a Notice of Dismissal form for Plaintiff’s convenience.

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating the “mailbox rule applies to § 1983 suits filed by pro se prisoners”).

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 1 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Document 7 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:109 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:22-cv-00379-DOC(MAR) Date: March 24, 2022 Title Phillip Lee Brock v. State of California et al Failure to respond to the Court’s Order will result in the dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer : eb

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2 Case 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Document Filed 03/24/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:110

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER

Plaintiff(s), Vv. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL Defendant(s). PROCEDURE 41(a) or (c)

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: (Check one) L] This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety. L] The Counterclaim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by Claimant(s) in its entirety. L] The Cross-Claim brought by Claimants(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety. L] The Third-party Claim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety. ONLY Defendant(s) is/are dismissed from (check one) Complaint, LJ Counterclaim, LJ Cross-claim, ) Third-Party Claim brought by . The dismissal is made pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 41(a) or (c).

Date Signature of Attorney/Party

NOTE: F.R.Civ.P. 41(a): This notice may be filed at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs. F.R.Civ.P. 41(c): Counterclaims, cross-claims & third-party claims may be dismissed before service of a responsive pleading or prior to the beginning of trial.

CV-09 (03/10) NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE or (c)