Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01856/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01856-1/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Daniel Trimble (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Cerado, Dulcich and Comstock for deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendant 

Abdon for medical malpractice. All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction for all 

purposes. (ECF Nos. 6, 20.)

On September 28, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction and Colorado River abstention. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff’s opposition was 

due on or before October 22, 2015. Plaintiff filed no opposition, and thus on October 29, 2015, 

Plaintiff was ordered to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion 

DANIEL TRIMBLE

 Plaintiff,

v.

ABDON, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01856-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO OBEY 

COURT ORDER

(ECF No. 21)

Case 1:14-cv-01856-BAM Document 22 Filed 02/26/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

within twenty-one (21) days. (ECF No. 21.) Plaintiff was also expressly warned that the failure to 

comply with that order would result in dismissal of his action, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 

(Id. at 1-2.) To date, Plaintiff has not complied with that order, nor has he otherwise been in contact 

with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should 

not be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN response 

within fourteen (14) days of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with 

prejudice, for failure to obey the Court’s order and for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff is warned that if 

the response does not show GOOD CAUSE, this matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01856-BAM Document 22 Filed 02/26/16 Page 2 of 2