Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01674-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
S.A. Bryant
Defendant
Mathew Cates
Defendant
Flores
Defendant
A. Garcia
Defendant
James D. Hartley
Defendant
Scott Herd
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

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

Plaintiff Scott Herd (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 30, 2015, the Court issued an order 

authorizing service of Plaintiff’s amended complaint on Defendants S.A. Bryant, Mathew Cates, 

Flores, A. Garcia, and James D. Hartley, and requiring Plaintiff to fill out and return the USM-285 

forms and summonses within thirty days. (ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff’s forms and summonses were due 

on or before December 3, 2015. 

As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has submitted two summonses and two USM-285 forms, 

for Defendants Garcia and Flores only, and three copies of the amended complaint. (ECF No. 40.) 

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order with respect to Defendants Bryant, Cates, or Hartley. 

SCOTT HERD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT 

SERVICE DOCUMENTS OR SHOW CAUSE 

WHY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 39)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 42 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall submit 

completed summonses and completed USM-285 forms for each of Defendants Bryant, Cates and 

Hartley, and three additional copies of the first amended complaint filed February 3, 2014, or shall 

show cause in writing why Defendants Bryant, Cates or Hartley should not be dismissed from this 

action for failure to prosecute; and

2. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of Defendants 

Bryant, Cates and Hartley from this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01674-DAD-BAM Document 42 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 2