Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01241/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-01241-4/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

MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSOCIATE WARDEN HURLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-1241 KJM KJN P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

I. Background

On July 3, 2019, plaintiff was granted leave to file a complaint, along with an application 

to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the court’s filing fee in this new action. (ECF No. 2.) On 

July 24, 2019, plaintiff was granted an additional 45 days in which to comply with such order. 

(ECF No. 6.) On August 27, 2019, plaintiff was granted another 15 days in which to file a 

complaint and submit his application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the court’s filing fee. 

(ECF No. 12.) On September 25, 2019, the undersigned recommended that this action be 

dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to comply with the July 3, 2019 order, despite multiple 

extensions of time to do so.

Case 2:19-cv-01241-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 03/20/20 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

 On January 10, 2020, the undersigned reviewed plaintiff’s September 25, 2019 filing 

concerning his alleged inability to attend the law library. (ECF No. 17.) The undersigned denied 

plaintiff’s motion without prejudice once plaintiff had complied with the July 3, 2019 order. (Id.

at 4.) In an abundance of caution, plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to comply with the 

July 3, 2019 order. Plaintiff was warned that the September 25, 2019 findings and 

recommendations would be held in abeyance, and if plaintiff failed to comply with the July 3, 

2019 order, the findings and recommendations would be forwarded to the district court for review 

and adoption.

Thirty days from January 10, 2020, expired on Sunday, February 9, 2020. Because the 

deadline ran on a Sunday, plaintiff had until Monday, February 10, 2020 in which to comply with 

the July 3, 2019 order. Allowing three additional days for mailing, plaintiff should have 

complied by February 14, 2020 at the latest. No such compliance occurred by February 14, 2020.

Rather, on February 12, 2020, plaintiff filed a document entitled, “Motion Updating Status 

of Complaint. . . .” (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff declared under penalty of perjury that on February 

18, 2020, the complaint would be sent by legal mail, and that his “Motion for IFP exception” 

would be submitted “within 3 days on 2/21/20.” (ECF No. 18.)

On February 26, 2020, plaintiff’s complaint was filed, signed by plaintiff on February 18, 

2020. On February 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a document styled, “Motion for Imminent Danger 

exception for § 1915(g), exception for IFP status to be granted due to imminent danger 

exception,” which he signed on February 21, 2020. (ECF No. 21.) 

II. Discussion

This record reflects plaintiff’s unwillingness to comply with court orders. Plaintiff did not 

seek an extension of time to file his complaint; rather, he simply pronounced he would be filing it 

late, despite plaintiff having been granted multiple extensions of time and ignoring the court’s 

warning that no further extensions of time would be granted. Importantly, to date, plaintiff also 

failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the court’s filing fee. Rather, 

plaintiff filed a request to be exempt from the three strikes bar imposed on litigants who have 

sustained three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Obviously, the court is unable to exempt 

Case 2:19-cv-01241-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 03/20/20 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

plaintiff from the application of § 1915 where he has yet to file an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Plaintiff has received multiple extensions of time to comply with this court’s initial 

order issued on July 3, 2019, which informed him of his obligation to file an application to 

proceed in forma pauperis or pay the court’s filing fee. Plaintiff has failed to diligently prosecute

this action, and failed to timely comply with multiple court orders. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days plaintiff shall show 

cause why the September 25, 2019 findings and recommendations should not be forwarded to the 

district court for adoption based on plaintiff’s failure to timely file his complaint as well as his 

total failure to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the court’s filing fee as 

required by prior court orders, in violation of Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Dated: March 20, 2020

w/diaz1241.osc

Case 2:19-cv-01241-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 3