Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05999-0/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

FRANCISCO GUYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. McVICAR, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 00 5999 OWW LJO P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CASE

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

 Francisco Guyton (“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. 

On February 13, 2003, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations that

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment be denied and that Defendant Loo be granted leave to file a dispositive Motion on the

retaliation claim not addressed in the Motion. (Doc. 52.) On March 12, 2003, the District Court

adopted the Recommendation in full and granted Defendant Loo to and including April 16, 2003,

to file a dispositive motion. (Doc. 52.) 

On April 14, 2003, Defendant Loo filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 55.) 

Magistrate Judge Theresa Goldner issued Findings and Recommendations on January 26, 2004,

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 06/06/05 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

1The case was referred to Magistrate Goldner on August 9, 2003, (Doc. 58), and referred back to the

undersigned on May 2, 2004, (Doc. 65).

2

that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.1 (Doc. 62.) The District Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations in full on March 30, 2004, and on September 24, 2004,

Judgment was entered. (Docs. 64, 66.) 

On October 1, 2004, the District Court issued an Order “Setting Aside Judgment” which

did not recognize that Defendant Loo, for whom the Court granted Summary Judgment on March

30, 2004, was the last remaining defendant in the case. Thus, it appears that the Order Setting

Aside Judgment was inadvertently issued. 

To date, neither party has contacted the Court indicating that there is any valid and legal

reason to continue with the prosecution or defense of the action. Accordingly, the Court

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE, within TWENTY (20) days of the date of

service of this Order, why the action should not be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05999-OWW -LJO Document 68 Filed 06/06/05 Page 2 of 2