Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-02109-3/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

LIZBETH COLON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ARAIN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv02109 DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH 

DISCOVERY ORDER AND/OR FAILURE 

TO PROSECUTE

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lizbeth Colon (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint for violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Jones and Arain.

The Court issued a Discovery and Scheduling Order on March 30, 2015, and the action is 

currently in discovery. Defendant Arain’s July 17, 2015, motion to compel is pending. Plaintiff 

did not file an opposition to the motion.

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 38 Filed 08/25/15 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

On August 21, 2015, Defendant Arain filed a notice indicating that Plaintiff was released 

from prison in December 2014 due to her cancer prognosis. Defendant Arain provided the Court 

with a current address for Plaintiff and the Court’s records have been updated.1

Counsel for Defendant Arain indicated that he last spoke with Plaintiff on May 4, 2015. 

During the discussion, Plaintiff indicated that she would not be responding to discovery. Urone 

Decl. ¶ 10.

Plaintiff last communicated with the Court in November 2014, when she revealed to the 

Court that her cancer prognosis was poor.

At this juncture, it appears as though Plaintiff may no longer be prosecuting this action. 

To avoid the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW 

CAUSE, if any she has, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the 

Court’s March 30, 2015, Discovery and Scheduling Order, and/or failure to prosecute this action. 

Plaintiff must file a response to this order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of 

this order.2

Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Insofar as Defendant Arain requests that this action no longer be treated as one involving an incarcerated person, 

the request is DENIED. It is this Court’s practice to continue application of Local Rule 230(l) even where an inmate 

is released during the pendency of an action.

2

 An individual on Plaintiff’s behalf may also inform the Court and/or Defendants’ counsel of Plaintiff’s situation.

Case 1:13-cv-02109-DLB Document 38 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2