Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00449-5/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.

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

(ECF No. 31)

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.) 

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

February 1, 2023, and has not filed a second amended complaint or notified the Court of intent to 

Case 1:22-cv-00449-SAB Document 32 Filed 06/26/23 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

proceed on one of the claims found to be cognizable. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED 

that Plaintiff shall show cause within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order 

why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a 

court order. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation to 

dismiss the action for the reasons stated above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00449-SAB Document 32 Filed 06/26/23 Page 2 of 2