Demerson v. Woodford

Full title: EDWARD DEMERSON, Plaintiff, v. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 23, 2013

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00144-LJO-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00144-LJO-SKO PC

04-23-2013

EDWARD DEMERSON, Plaintiff, v. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(Doc. 165)

TEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Edward Demerson, a former state prisoner proceeding pro, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 29, 2008. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed on June 24, 2009, against Defendants Phillips, Campos, Amaro, Clausing, Bardonnex, Munoz, and Cartagina for using excessive physical force against Plaintiff, and against Defendants Munoz, Cartagina, Gregory, and Hillard for acting with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff's resulting injuries, in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 29, 2012, and Plaintiff was subsequently granted multiple extensions of time to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to the motion. The most recent extension of time expired on April 8, 2013, but Plaintiff has not filed his response to Defendants' motion. Plaintiff was released from prison in January 2013, and he has had more than ample opportunity to file his response. (Doc. 162.)

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute; and
2. The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE