Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00764-6/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

CESARIO VIZCARRA MEDINA, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CDCR, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00764-ADA-EPG (PC)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT 

BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, 

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 

COURT ORDER, TO PROSECUTE THIS 

CASE, AND/OR TO COMPLY WITH 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 

4(M)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 

Cesario Medina (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This case is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against 

Doe ISU Officers 1-3. (ECF Nos. 1, 6, 7, & 9).

As this case is only proceeding against Doe defendants, the Court authorized the 

issuance of a subpoena so that Plaintiff could seek documents that identify the Doe defendants. 

(ECF No. 10). The subpoena was served on March 7, 2023. (ECF No. 18).

Additionally, the Court set a deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion to substitute named 

defendants in place of the Doe defendants. (Id.). Plaintiff was warned that “Failure to file a

motion to substitute by this deadline may result in the dismissal of the unidentified defendants.” 

(Id. at 2). This deadline was subsequently extended to April 10, 2023. (ECF No. 17).

The extended deadline has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a motion to substitute or 

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 04/26/23 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

taken any other action in this case. Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff an opportunity to 

show cause why the Court should not issue findings and recommendations to a district judge, 

recommending that this action be dismissed, without prejudice, because of Plaintiff’s failure to 

comply with a court order, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to comply with Rule 4(m). The 

Court will vacate this order to show cause if, in response, Plaintiff files a motion to substitute 

named defendants in place of the Doe defendants, files a motion to compel regarding the 

subpoena that was served on March 7, 2023, or files a motion for the issuance of a second

subpoena for additional documents so that he can attempt to identify the Doe defendants.

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff has twenty-one days from the date of service of this order to show cause 

why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply 

with a court order, failure to prosecute, and/or failure to comply with Rule 4(m); and

2. Failure to respond to this order may result in this action being dismissed, without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 25, 2023 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00764-KES-EPG Document 19 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 2