Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01326/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01326-4/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER C. CLARK,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARSHALL SAIPHER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 

CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO STATE A CLAIM

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY-ONE 

DAYS

On October 4, 2022, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and notified 

plaintiff that it alleged cognizable Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and California Torts 

Claims Act (“CTCA”) claims against defendants Saipher and Naseer, but that the other claims 

were not viable. ECF No. 20. The court gave plaintiff thirty days to file an amended complaint

or to advise the court if he wished to stand by his current complaint and proceed only with his 

Eighth Amendment and CTCA claims against defendants Saipher and Naseer. Id. at 4. To date, 

plaintiff has not filed either an amended complaint or a notice of election to proceed on the 

cognizable claims. 

To manage its docket effectively, the court requires litigants to meet certain deadlines. 

The court may impose sanctions, including dismissing a case, for failure to comply with its orders 

or local rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); E.D. Cal. L.R. 110; Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. 

Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 

Case 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP Document 21 Filed 12/09/22 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

1988). Involuntary dismissal is a harsh penalty, but a district court has a duty to administer

justice expeditiously and avoid needless burden for the parties. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 

F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.

Plaintiff will be given a chance to explain why the court should not dismiss the case for 

his failure to file an amended complaint or notice of election to proceed on the cognizable claims. 

Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this order will constitute a failure to comply with a court order and 

will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff is ordered to 

show cause within twenty-one days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute 

and failure to state a claim. Should plaintiff wish to continue with this lawsuit, he shall file, 

within twenty-one days, an amended complaint or advise if he wishes to proceed only with his 

Eighth Amendment and CTCA claims against defendants Saipher and Naseer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2022 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01326-DAD-JDP Document 21 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 2