From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moten v. Cisneros

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 29, 2024
1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2024)

Opinion

1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC)

07-29-2024

SHARROD MOTEN, Plaintiff, v. THERESA CISNEROS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER

(ECF NO. 14)

PLAINTIFF'S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE AUGUST 28, 2024

GARY S. AUSTIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. He will be given thirty days to do so.

I. BACKGROUND

On May 22, 2024, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint and directed him to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 14 at 6. At that time, Plaintiff was given thirty days to do so. See id. More than thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has neither filed an amended complaint nor requested an extension of time to comply with the Court's order.

II. DISCUSSION

Both the Court and the public have an interest in the disposal of cases in an expedient manner. See generally Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (presuming public has interest in expeditious litigation). Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint as ordered has stalled this process, and it warrants the Court issuing an order directing him to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order. He will be given thirty days to do so. However, as an alternative to Plaintiff filing a showing of cause, within the same thirty-day period, Plaintiff may instead file the first amended complaint as he was previously ordered to do.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of this order - by August 28, 2024, - Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for failure to obey a court order, or

2. In the alternative to filing a showing of cause, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint, but must do so by August 28, 2024.

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Moten v. Cisneros

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 29, 2024
1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Moten v. Cisneros

Case Details

Full title:SHARROD MOTEN, Plaintiff, v. THERESA CISNEROS, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 29, 2024

Citations

1:24-cv-00022 JLT GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jul. 29, 2024)