Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00441-4/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

DAVID FALLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. ARREDONDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00441-SAB (PC)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE IN WRITING WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

(ECF Nos. 10, 13)

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff David Falls is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

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

On August 26, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint and found that Plaintiff 

stated a cognizable claim against Defendant Arredondo, in his individual capacity, for excessive 

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, but failed to state any other cognizable claims 

against any other defendants. (ECF No. 10.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to either file a first 

amended complaint or notify the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the 

cognizable claims, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the order. (Id.)

Plaintiff failed to file a first amended complaint, notify the Court in writing of his 

willingness to proceed only on the claims found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise 

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 3
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

communicate with the Court within the allotted time. Therefore, on October 29, 2019, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 

failure to comply with the Court’s August 26, 2019 screening order and failure to prosecute, 

within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the order. (ECF No. 11.)

On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a written response to the Court’s order to show 

cause, contending that this action should not be dismissed because he had timely sent a 33-page 

first amended complaint via “e-file” through the prison law library. (ECF No. 12.) 

On November 26, 2019, the Court issued an order vacating the October 29, 2019 order to 

show cause, and informing Plaintiff that no first amended complaint has been filed in this action 

and that any submission of a first amended complaint through the e-filing system at Kern Valley 

State Prison would be improper. (ECF No. 13.) The Court granted Plaintiff a thirty (30) day 

extension of time to file by mail either a first amended complaint or a notice of Plaintiff’s intent 

to proceed only on the cognizable claim identified by the Court in its August 26, 2019 screening 

order. (Id.)

However, Plaintiff has not filed a first amended complaint, notified the Court in writing of 

his willingness to proceed only on the claim found cognizable by the Court, or otherwise

communicated with the Court, and the time in which to do so has passed.

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 August 26, 2019 and November 26, 

2019 orders and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff can comply with this order to show cause by either 

filing a first amended complaint in compliance with the Court’s August 26, 2019 screening order

or by notifying the Court in writing of his willingness to proceed only on the claim found to be 

cognizable by the Court.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 

to a District Judge that the instant action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey 

court orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00441-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/07/20 Page 3 of 3