Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01276-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry William Cortinas
Plaintiff
McDonald
Defendant

Document Text:

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

LARRY WILLIAM CORTINAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MCDONALD,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01276-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER

REQUIRING DEFENDANT MCDONALD TO 

SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFAULT SHOULD 

NOT BE ENTERED

(ECF No. 21)

Plaintiff Larry William Cortinas (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendant MacDonald1for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On February 26, 2020, Defendant MacDonald submitted a waiver of service of summons. 

(ECF No. 18.) On April 13, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for a thirty-day extension of time to 

file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 19.) The Court granted the request, and Defendant was 

ordered to file a responsive pleading on or before May 13, 2020. (ECF No. 20.) On May 14, 

2020, after Defendant failed to respond to the complaint or otherwise communicate with the 

Court, the Court issued an order for Defendant MacDonald to show cause, within thirty (30) days, 

why default should not be entered against him. (ECF No. 21.)

1 Erroneously sued as “McDonald.”

Case 1:19-cv-01276-NONE-BAM Document 24 Filed 06/01/20 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

Defendant MacDonald filed an answer to the complaint on May 20, 2020. (ECF No. 22.) 

The Court then referred the case to post-screening Alternative Dispute Resolution and stayed the 

case. (ECF No. 23.)

Based on the prompt filing of Defendant’s answer to the complaint in response to the 

order to show cause, the Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated an intent to defend the suit 

on its merits. The Court can discern no prejudice to Plaintiff as a result of the brief delay, 

particularly in light of the pending settlement conference and stay of this action.

Accordingly, the Court’s May 14, 2020 order to show cause, (ECF No. 21), is HEREBY 

DISCHARGED. Defendant is relieved of the obligation to file a further response to that order, 

and the action remains stayed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01276-NONE-BAM Document 24 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 2