Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835-12/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

BYRON G. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06835-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

DEFENDANT DOE #4 SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION 

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF DUE IN

THIRTY DAYS 

 Byron G. Martin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on

November 14, 2003 in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont. The action

was transferred to this court on December 4, 2003 and received on December 15, 2003. (Doc. 1) 

On May 2, 2007, the court issued findings and recommendations for this action to

proceed on plaintiff’s second amended complaint dated August 12, 2005, against defendants Doe

#1 (Padilla) for excessive force, Doe #2 (Rauh) for failure to protect, and Doe #4 (hearing

officer) for due process violations. (Doc. 34.) The findings and recommendations were adopted

by the District Judge on June 22, 2007. (Doc. 41.) 

On May 2, 2007, the court forwarded documents to plaintiff with instructions to complete

and return them to the court for service of process on defendants Padilla and Rauh. (Doc. 35.) 

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 56 Filed 08/14/08 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

Plaintiff was advised that service of process on defendant Doe #4 (hearing officer) would be

initiated when plaintiff ascertained the identity of Doe #4. (Id. at fn 2.) On June 19, 2007, the

court ordered the U.S. Marshal to initiate service of process upon defendants Padilla and Rauh. 

(Doc. 40.)

On September 13, 2007, defendants Padilla and Rauh filed an answer to the second

amended complaint. (Doc. 45.) On September 28, 2007, the court issued a

Discovery/Scheduling Order which established a discovery cut-off date of May 27, 2008 and a

dispositive motions deadline of July 28, 2008. (Doc. 49.) The time for discovery and filing of

dispositive motions has now expired. At this stage of the proceeding, the court begins to prepare

for trial. However, to date plaintiff has not notified the court of the identity of defendant Doe #4,

and Doe #4 has not been served with process. Therefore, plaintiff shall be ordered to show cause

why defendant Doe #4 should not be dismissed from this action. Within thirty days, plaintiff

shall file a written response with the court explaining why defendant Doe #4 should not be

dismissed. In the alternative, plaintiff may file a non-opposition to the dismissal of defendant

Doe #4. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file a

written response showing cause why defendant Doe #4 should not be dismissed

from this action;

2. In the alternative, plaintiff may file a written non-opposition to the dismissal of

defendant Doe #4; and

3. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that

this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 13, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 56 Filed 08/14/08 Page 2 of 2