Randy Eugene Haynes v. Holm

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 15, 2023
Docket5:23-cv-00914
StatusUnknown

This text of Randy Eugene Haynes v. Holm (Randy Eugene Haynes v. Holm) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Randy Eugene Haynes v. Holm, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. ED CV 23-914 PA (MRW) Date September 15, 2023 Title Haynes v. Holm

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. In July 2023, Judge Wilner issued a detailed order screening this pro se civil rights action. (Docket # 9.) The Court’s July order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for various procedural and substantive defects. The order further required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint or dismiss this action by August 31. However, the Court received no further complaint from Plaintiff by or after the due date.1

2. The Court could rightly terminate the action today under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to a self-represented prisoner, the Court instead ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may cure this OSC by filing a statement explaining his failure to comply with the Court’s previous order and submitting either a voluntary dismissal of the action or an amended complaint.

3. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by October 13.

Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).

1 The Court received a cryptic letter requesting that the Court send mail to Plaintiff in care of his father. (Docket # 10.) While this may literally comply with Plaintiff’s obligation to maintain a valid mailing address (as required under the Local Rules of Court), that does not relieve Plaintiff of his obligation to comply with legal deadlines established in a federal lawsuit that he commenced.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Larry Lichtenegger
913 F.3d 884 (Ninth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Randy Eugene Haynes v. Holm, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randy-eugene-haynes-v-holm-cacd-2023.