Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01812/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01812-6/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMON JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES YATES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01812-AWI-YNP PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

SHOW CAUSE DUE WITHIN 20 DAYS

Plaintiff Damon Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On August 18, 2009, Defendant filed a motion to dismissthis action pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims. Plaintiff has not filed an

opposition or statement of no opposition. The Court notes that it has not received any

communication whatsoever from Plaintiff since Plaintiff filed a notice on February 24, 2009 in

response to the Court’s January 23, 2009 screening order. Since then, Plaintiff was required by local

rule to respond to Defendant’s August 18, 2009 motion to dismiss by filing an opposition or

statement of no opposition. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was

further served with a copy of the Court’s October 9, 2009 Findings and Recommendations which

recommended the granting of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was to file an opposition, 1

if any, to that Findings and Recommendation within thirty days. Plaintiff did not respond to the

The district judge assigned to this case declined to adopt the findings and recommendations recommending

1

that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted.

1

Case 1:06-cv-01812-AWI-WMW Document 29 Filed 01/05/10 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

Court’s Findings and Recommendation. “It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte

dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.” Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984). Thus,

Plaintiff will also be ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed based on

Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

within TWENTY (20) days of the date of service of this Order, why this action should not be

dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

Plaintiff is forewarned that the failure to show cause may result in a recommendation

that this action be dismissed due to Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-01812-AWI-WMW Document 29 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2