Sammy Lee Morris v. E. Burrkhouse

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. CV 19-5839-SVW (KK) Date: December 22, 2020 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEB TAYLOR Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why this Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Comply with Court Orders

On September 3, 2020, Defendants E. Burrkhouse, M. Rosales, D. Schumacher, and J. Anderson (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Sammy Lee Morris (“Plaintiff”)’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on several grounds, including failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and qualified immunity. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 58. On September 8, 2020, the Court issued an Order notifying Plaintiff that his Opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to the Motion to Dismiss was due by October 5, 2020. Dkt. 59. The Order specifically warned Plaintiff:

failure to timely file an opposition to the Motion may result in the granting of the Motion in its entirety. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The failure to file any required document, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion.”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming the grant of an unopposed motion to dismiss, deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion). Plaintiff is further cautioned that failure to timely file an opposition, or notice of non-opposition, to the Motion may result in this case being dismissed due to failure to prosecute and obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition or a request for an extension of time to do so. THEREFORE, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before January 5, 2020 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with Court orders. Plaintiff may discharge this order by filing his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss by January 5, 2020.

Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. Plaintiff may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court has attached a Notice of Dismissal form.

Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that if he fails to respond to this Order by January 5, 2020, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NUMBER Plaintiff(s), v. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a) or (c) Defendant(s). PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: (Check one) G This action is dismissed by the Plaintiff(s) in its entirety. G The Counterclaim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by Claimant(s) in its entirety. G The Cross-Claim brought by Claimants(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety. G The Third-party Claim brought by Claimant(s) is dismissed by the Claimant(s) in its entirety. G ONLY Defendant(s) is/are dismissed from (check one)G Complaint, G Counterclaim, G Cross-claim, G 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