Phillip Lee Brock v. State of California

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Document 8 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Date: May 2, 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) SECOND 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.

On March 24, 2022, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) giving Plaintiff until April 13, 2022, to show why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 7. Plaintiff was warned that, “[f]ailure to respond to the Court’s Order will result in the dismissal of the action.” Id. (emphasis added).

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a FAC or otherwise responded to the Court’s March 24, 2022, OSC. Accordingly, Plaintiff must respond to the Court with one (1) of the three (3) options listed in the 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 request a voluntarily dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court 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 8 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:112 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 2:22-cv-00379-DOC-MAR Date: May 2, 2022 Title Phillip Lee Brock v. State of California et al

Dkt. 9.

Plaintiff must comply within fourteen (14) days of this Order, by May 16, 2022, or this action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer : eb

CV-90 (03/15) Civil Minutes – General Page 2 of 2