Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02105/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-02105-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY K. LECOMPTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DHAH, et al., 

Defendants.

1:11cv02105 DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

SHOULD NOT BE DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO SERVE

FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Timothy K. LeCompte (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action filed on December 21, 2011. 

On April 29, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. According to the proof of service, 

the Motion to Dismiss was served on Plaintiff at Corcoran State Prison.1

On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. The notice, signed on April 

25, 2013, indicates that he is now housed at Kern Valley State Prison. 

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. There is no evidence on the docket, however, 

that Plaintiff has been served with the motion at his current address.

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any they have, why the 

Motion to Dismiss should not be denied without prejudice for failure to serve. Defendants are 

ORDERED to file a response to this order to show cause within fifteen (15) days. Defendants may 

comply with this order by filing a proof of service showing proper service.

 

1 Defendants have not indicated whether they consent to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff 

consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction on January 3, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02105-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 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

Failure to comply with this order will result in the denial of the pending Motion to Dismiss, 

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2013 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

9b0hied

Case 1:11-cv-02105-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 06/11/13 Page 2 of 2