From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shinault v. Riverside County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 19, 2015
ED CV 15-00172 JLS (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2015)

Opinion


Reggie Anthony Shinault v. Riverside County, et al ED CV 15-00172 JLS (RAO) United States District Court, C.D. California June 19, 2015

          PROCEEDINGS: IN CHAMBERS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL

          The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         On January 28, 2015, plaintiff Reggie Anthony Shinault (" Plaintiff"), then a prisoner at Valley State Prison, proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint (" Complaint") under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County of Riverside and Sheriff Stan Sniff (the " Defendants"), and two Doe defendants. ( See ECF No. 1 at 1-4.) Plaintiff also filed a Request to Proceed Without Prepayment of Filing Fees (ECF No. 2), which was granted on March 3, 2015. (ECF No. 8.)

Based on the Notice of Change of Address that Plaintiff filed on February 25, 2015, which indicates that his residence is now located in Rialto, California, Plaintiff appears to have been released from prison. (ECF No. 7.)

         On April 21, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (ECF No. 14.) On April 24, 2015, that motion was served on Plaintiff by U.S. Mail. (ECF No. 16 at 13.) On May 18, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion on or before June 4, 2015. (ECF No. 22.) As of today, June 19, 2015, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition, nor has he corresponded with the Court in any other manner since the May 18, 2015 order issued.

         On June 16, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories on the ground that Plaintiff has not responded to their requests for discovery. (ECF No. 23).

         In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause in writing, on or before June 29, 2015, why Plaintiff's action should not be dismissed due to his failure to prosecute. If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may voluntarily dismiss it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form has been attached for Plaintiff's convenience. Failure to comply with this Order and/or to show cause will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute and obey court orders.


Summaries of

Shinault v. Riverside County

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 19, 2015
ED CV 15-00172 JLS (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2015)
Case details for

Shinault v. Riverside County

Case Details

Full title:Reggie Anthony Shinault v. Riverside County, et al

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Jun 19, 2015

Citations

ED CV 15-00172 JLS (RAO) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2015)