Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00504-9/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAPHAEL GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

WRIGHT,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF Nos. 41, 42)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Raphael Graham (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

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

Defendant Wright (“Defendant”) for violation of the Fourth Amendment for conducting the 

second strip search with an activated body camera, exposing Plaintiff’s genitals on camera, and 

for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

On April 15, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of request to seal documents pursuant to 

Local Rule 141, together with a redacted motion for summary judgment on the grounds that 

Defendant did not violate Plaintiff’s First or Fourth Amendment rights and Defendant is entitled 

to qualified immunity. (ECF Nos. 41, 42.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of 

the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 

(9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 

F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 42-4.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal 

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 45 Filed 07/12/24 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

Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), as well as the Court’s May 28, 2024 order granting an extension of 

time, Plaintiff’s opposition(s) or statement(s) of non-opposition to the request to seal and the 

motion for summary judgment were due on or before July 1, 2024. (ECF No. 44.) The deadline 

for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant’s request to seal and motion for summary judgment has 

expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one 

final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 

RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be 

dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order 

by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s April 15, 2024 request to 

seal and motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the 

Court’s order, this matter will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00504-KES-BAM Document 45 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 2