Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, 

Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY DEFENDANTS GUERRERO AND

GARCIA NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS

ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO

PROSECUTE AGAINST THEM

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Eric Charles Rodney K’napp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Original Complaint commencing

this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended

Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants Warden Derral G. Adams,

Lieutenant (“Lt.”) E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. Sherman, and D. Selvy

(Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff, and against defendants K.

Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator Cooper, Appeals Coordinator

V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 (Mailroom Workers) for interfering with

his right to send mail in violation of the First Amendment. (Doc. 16.) 1

On March 12, 2012, defendants Meaders, Cuevas, and Johnson were dismissed from this action by the

1

Court, based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust remedies against them before filing suit. (Doc. 88.) All other claims

and defendants, other than those listed above, were dismissed from this action by the Court on August 17, 2009,

based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 29.)

1

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 95 Filed 12/13/12 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

On March 14, 2012, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to serve

process in this action upon Defendants Guerrero and Garcia. (Doc. 89.) On November 13, 2012,

the Court received two USM-285 forms from the Marshal indicating that personal service was

effected upon Defendants Guerrero and Garcia on October 12, 2012 and October 10, 2012,

respectively, which gave the Defendants twenty-one days in which to file an answer or motion under

Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff’s complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 94.) More than

sixty days have passed, and Defendants Guerrero and Garcia have not filed an answer, a motion

under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Court Docket.) Plaintiff has not

filed a motion under Rule 55. Id. 

II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why

Defendants Guerrero and Garcia should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to

prosecute against them.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

response to the Court, showing cause why Defendants Guerrero and Garcia should

not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute against them; and

2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 13, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

220hhe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 95 Filed 12/13/12 Page 2 of 2