Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02334/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-02334-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES V. CAICO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-2334 MCE PAN P

vs.

V. R. KING, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. A review of the instant action shows that plaintiff has not diligently

prosecuted this case. The court possesses the discretionary authority to dismiss an action based

on plaintiff’s failure to diligently prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Unreasonable delay by

plaintiff is sufficient to justify dismissal, even in the absence of actual prejudice to the defendant,

see Moore v. Telfon Communications Corp., 589 F.2d 959, 967-68 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson v.

Air West, Inc., 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976), since a presumption of injury arises from the

occurrence of unreasonable delay. Fidelity Philadelphia Trust Co. v. Pioche Mines Consolidated,

Inc., 587 F.2d 27, 29 (9th Cir. 1978); Anderson, 542 F.2d at 524; Alexander v. Pacific Maritime

Association, 434 F.2d 281, 283 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1009 (1971). Plaintiff

then has the burden of showing justification for the delay and in the absence of such showing the

Case 2:01-cv-02334-MCE -PAN Document 55 Filed 03/01/06 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

2

case is properly dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Nealey v. Transportation Maritima

Mexicana, S.A., 662 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Therefore, plaintiff will be ordered to show cause in writing why this matter

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. If plaintiff has any reasons why this action

should not be dismissed, he shall submit them by sworn declaration of facts no later than

fourteen days from the date of this order. Failure to respond to this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen

days from the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this matter should not

be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Failure to respond to this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution.

DATED: February 28, 2006. 

12

caic2334.osc

Case 2:01-cv-02334-MCE -PAN Document 55 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2