Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03586/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03586-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

According to the most recent address listed on the docket, plaintiff no longer is

incarcerated.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD G. STINSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOARD OF PRISON TERMS, et al., 

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-3586 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER OR

FACE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE

TO PROSECUTE

On June 5, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at the California

State Prison at Solano1

 and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2007, the Court ordered plaintiff’s cognizable claim for

denial of adequate medical care served on Oakland Police Officers Tisdel and Biletnikoff. 

The Court directed defendants, no later than ninety days from the date of the order, to file a

motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to plaintiff’s claim.

To date, no dispositive motion has been filed, and it has come to the Court’s attention

that, due to a clerical error, defendants never were served with the Court’s May 10, 2007

order. Thus, in order for this action to proceed, the Clerk must reissue summons and the

Marshal must serve defendants. 

Before the Court will order such service, however, plaintiff must inform the Court

whether he intends to proceed with the prosecution of this action, in that approximately

nineteen months have elapsed since plaintiff last communicated with the Court in February

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 62 Filed 08/25/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2007. Accordingly, plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file with the Court, within twenty (20)

days of the date this order is filed, a statement of his continued intent to prosecute this action. 

If plaintiff timely files such statement, the Court will order the Clerk to reissue summons and

the Marshal to serve defendants. Should plaintiff fail to comply with this order, the action

will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 25, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-03586-MMC Document 62 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 2