Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-01323-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CRYSTAL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01323 KES GSA (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING COUNSEL FOR 

PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY HE 

SHOULD NOT BE SANCTIONED 

MONETARILY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY 

WITH LOCAL RULES AND FOR FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER, OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(See Local Rule 230(c); ECF No. 26)

COUNSEL’S RESPONSE TO THIS ORDER 

DUE AUGUST 2, 2024

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action 

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is represented by counsel. The matter was 

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 

302. It is related to seven other matters before this Court. See generally ECF No. 27.

For the reasons stated below, counsel for Plaintiff, Joseph A. Virgilio, will be ordered to 

show cause why he should not be sanctioned monetarily for failing to comply with Local Rule 

230(c), and for failing on Plaintiff’s behalf to obey the Court’s order to file a response to 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF Nos. 24, 26 (Defendant’s motion; order to show cause 

why Defendant’s motion to dismiss should not be granted). He will be given two weeks to do so.

Case 1:23-cv-01323-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 07/19/24 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

I. RELEVANT FACTS

On April 3, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in this matter. ECF No. 24. As a 

result, Plaintiff was required either to file an opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or a 

statement of non-opposition. See Local Rule 230(c).

Because Plaintiff failed to timely file a response to the motion to dismiss, on June 6, 2024, 

Plaintiff was ordered to show cause why Defendant’s motion to dismiss should not be granted. 

ECF No. 26 at 2, 4. In the alternative, Plaintiff was given the opportunity either to file an 

opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Id. at 4. To date, 

Plaintiff has neither filed a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, nor responded to the order 

to show cause. 

II. DISCUSSION

Given that: (1) more than three months after Defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed 

Plaintiff has failed to file a response to it in compliance with the Local Rules; (2) Plaintiff has 

failed either to file a showing of cause or, in the alternative, file a response to Defendant’s motion 

to dismiss as specifically ordered to do over one month ago; and, (3) Attorney Joseph A Virgilio 

is representing Plaintiff—as such, Attorney Virgilio will ordered to respond to this show cause 

order.

Therefore, because Plaintiff has neither complied with the Local Rules, nor responded to 

the Court’s order to show cause, Attorney Virgilio shall be ordered to show cause why he should 

not be sanctioned monetarily for failing to comply, and further why this case should not be

dismissed in its entirety for failure to prosecute. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, 

Plaintiff may file the requisite response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff will be given 

fourteen days to take one of these two courses of action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Attorney Joseph A. Virgilio is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why he should not be 

sanctioned monetarily, and further why this case should not be dismissed in its entirety for failure 

to prosecute;

2. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Attorney Virgilio may, on Plaintiff’s 

Case 1:23-cv-01323-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 07/19/24 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

behalf, file a response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and

3. Attorney Virgilio will be given fourteen days – until August 2, 2024, – to take either 

of these courses of action.

Attorney Virgilio is warned that failure to comply with this order within the time 

allotted may result in his being sanctioned monetarily, and/or the case being dismissed in its 

entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-01323-JLT-GSA Document 28 Filed 07/19/24 Page 3 of 3