Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DANIEL MATNEY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO HEAT TASK FORCE )

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL )

OFFICER L. PRATT ID # 13569, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00767-AWI-SMS

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO FOLLOW A

COURT ORDER, EFFECTUATE SERVICE,

AND OTHERWISE PROSECUTE THIS

ACTION (DOC. 5)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Fresno County Jail

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for

damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights

violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

On June 24, 2005, Plaintiff was directed to submit service

documents to the Court within thirty days. Further, Plaintiff was

informed that his failure to comply with the order would result

in a recommendation that the action would be dismissed for

failure to follow the Court’s order pursuant to Local Rule 11-

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 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

2

110. The order directing service and the service documents that

Plaintiff was to complete and return were served by mail on

Plaintiff on the same date. Well over thirty days have passed,

and Plaintiff has failed to submit service documents or to take

any steps to effectuate service.

A failure to comply with an order of the Court may result in

sanctions, including dismissal, pursuant to the inherent power of

the Court or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b), 11; Local Rule 11-110; Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501

U.S. 31, 42-43 (1991).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this

order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for failure to obey the Court’s order of June 24, 2005,

to submit service documents and effectuate service on Defendants

Pratt and Dewey; Plaintiff shall show cause in writing because

the Court has determined that no hearing is necessary; and

2. The failure to respond to this order will result in

dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2