Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00470-11/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

RICKY L. THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHIRLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 41)

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Ricky L. Thomas (“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 on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant DeGough (“Defendant”) for deliberate 

indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On October 25, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 41.) Together with 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. 41-5.) 

Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or 

statement of non-opposition was due on or before November 18, 2024. The deadline for Plaintiff 

to respond to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise 

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 47 Filed 12/04/24 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

been in contact with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed without 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, without 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 October 25, 2024

motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s 

order, this matter will be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2024 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00470-JLT-BAM Document 47 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 2