Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00449-6/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

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

COLTON JAMES ROOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECRETARY OF CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:22-cv-00449-SAB (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

FOURTH MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO 

SCREENING ORDER

 (ECF Nos. 32, 33) 

Plaintiff Colton James Rood is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

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

On February 1, 2023, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, found that 

Plaintiff stated the following three claims under the Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate 

indifference to his safety against: (1) Defendants Castillo, Juarez, Guitron, Trejo, and John Doe 

(building 5 floor officer) for the incident on November 5, 2020; (2) Defendant Morrell for the incidents 

between November 10, 2020 and November 23, 2020; and (3) Defendant Carrillo for the incident on 

February 10, 2021. Plaintiff also states a cognizable retaliation claim against Defendant Carrillo. 

However, only the deliberate indifference and retaliation claims against Defendant Carrillo are related. 

(ECF No. 24, at 15.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint or notify the Court 

of intent to proceed only on one of the cognizable claims. (Id. at 16-17.) 

Case 1:22-cv-00449-SAB Document 34 Filed 07/14/23 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

After receiving three extensions of time, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s February 

1, 2023, and did not file an second amended complaint or notify the Court of intent to proceed on one 

of the claims found to be cognizable. Accordingly, on June 26, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiff to 

show cause why the action should not be dismissed. 

On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and requested a fourth 

extension of time to respond to the Court’s February 1, 2023, screening order. (ECF No. 33.) 

Plaintiff contends that in June he sent a fourth request for an extension of time, but it was not 

received by the Court and he has been suffering from pneumonia for the past two months. 

On the basis of good cause, the Court will discharge the order to show and grant Plaintiff’s 

request to extend the time to respond to the Court’s February 1, 2023, screening order. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s June 26, 2023, order to show cause is DISCHARGED; 

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order Plaintiff shall file a 

response to the Court’s February 1, 2023, screening order; and

3. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to dismiss the 

action for failure to comply with a court order and failure to prosecute. Local Rule 

110. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00449-SAB Document 34 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 2