Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02022/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-02022-3/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Brandon Earl McCormick is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On September 8, 2014, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the motion was 

noticed for oral argument on November 5, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. As stated in 

the Court’s July 29, 2014, order, because Plaintiff has been released from prison and is no longer a 

state prisoner, Local Rule 230(l) no longer governs this action and all other non-prisoner provisions in 

the Local Rules shall apply. 

Applying the noticed hearing date and Local Rule 230(b), Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss was due on or before October 22, 2014. To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an 

opposition or otherwise respond to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the 

BRANDON EARL McCORMICK,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DR. ATKIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-02022-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE OF 

NOVEMBER 5, 2013, AND DIRECTING 

PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL 

RULES OF THIS COURT

[ECF No. 23]

Case 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Court will vacate the November 5, 2014, hearing date, and direct Plaintiff to show cause why the 

action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the Local Rules of this Court.

Local Rule 110 states that the “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or 

with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” In light of the fact that 

Plaintiff failed to file an opposition and has not been in communication with the Court, Plaintiff shall 

be directed to show cause why the action should not dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Bautista v. 

Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000) (The Court has the inherent power to control 

its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including 

dismissal of the action). Plaintiff’s inaction hinders the Court’s ability to move this case toward 

disposition and indicates that Plaintiff does not intend to litigate this action diligently. Plaintiff is 

warned that the failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to 

prosecute.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The November 5, 2014, hearing date is VACATED;

2. Within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show 

cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute; and

3. The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action for failure to 

prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-02022-LJO-SAB Document 24 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 2