Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01467/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01467-17/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

ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

F. ROJAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01467-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

(ECF Nos. 52, 55, 57, 59)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Antonio Martinez is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On September 10, 2019, Defendant F. Rojas filed a motion for summary judgment for 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (ECF No. 52.) 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. 52-1.) 

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time to file an 

opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 55.) However, Plaintiff failed 

to file an opposition within the allotted time. Therefore, on November 21, 2019, the Court issued 

an order directing Plaintiff to file an opposition, or a statement of non-opposition, to Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment within twenty-one days from the date of service of the order. 

Case 1:16-cv-01467-BAM Document 62 Filed 01/24/20 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

(ECF No. 57.)

In response to the Court’s November 21, 2019 order, Plaintiff filed a motion for a second 

extension of time. (ECF No. 58.) On December 9, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff a second 

thirty-day extension of time to file an opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. 

(ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff’s opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment was therefore due on or before Monday, January 13, 2020. 

To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, nor has Plaintiff otherwise communicated with the 

Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not 

be dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days from the date of 

service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the instant action should not be 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s October 9, 2019, November 21, 2019, 

and December 9, 2019 orders and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with this order to 

show cause by filing an opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order to show cause 

will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this action be dismissed for 

failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01467-BAM Document 62 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 2