Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00705/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00705-5/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

E’DRICK BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETERSON,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14cv00705 DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO FOLLOW COURT ORDER

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff E’drick Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on May 12, 2014. Pursuant to Court 

order, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on November 5, 2014.1

On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to 

amend. Plaintiff requested and received three extensions of time within which to file an 

amended complaint. After the time for filing passed, the Court issued an order to show cause on 

September 11, 2015.

On October 15, 2015, the Court discharged the order to show cause after Plaintiff filed a 

response indicating that he had been on lockdown at his place of incarceration. Plaintiff was 

given an additional thirty (30) days to file his amended complaint.

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on May 21, 2014.

Case 1:14-cv-00705-DLB Document 24 Filed 02/29/16 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

On November 30, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for additional time and 

granted another thirty (30) days for Plaintiff to file his amended complaint.

On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay this action. He stated that he had 

been transferred in October 2015, and that staff could not locate his legal property. The Court 

denied the stay on January 7, 2016, but granted Plaintiff another thirty (30) day extension of 

time. The Court noted that separation from property after transfer is generally a temporary issue.

Well over thirty (30) days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed his amended complaint 

or otherwise contacted the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any he has, why this action 

should not be dismissed for his failure to follow a Court order and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff 

must file a response to this order within thirty (30) days of the date of service. 

Plaintiff may also comply with this order by filing an amended complaint pursuant to the 

March 31, 2015, order. As this action has pending since May 2014, and Plaintiff has had since 

March 31, 2015, to file an amended complaint, extensions of time will not be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances. 

Failure to respond will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00705-DLB Document 24 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2