Singh v. City of Sacramento

Full title: RAJ SINGH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Oct 16, 2015

2:15-cv-0997 MCE AC (PS) (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2015)

Opinion

RAJ SINGH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., Defendants. No. 2:15-cv-0997 MCE AC (PS) United States District Court, E.D. California. October 16, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, District Judge.

         Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per, and in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned by E.D. Cal. R. ("Local Rule") 302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

         In the order granting plaintiff IFP status, plaintiff was ordered to file a statement with the court showing that he had submitted the required service documents to the U.S. Marshal. See ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has not done so, and the docket shows no activity since that order was issued on May 13, 2015.

         Good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

         1. The Initial Scheduling Conference, now set for October 28, 2015, is VACATED; and

         2. Plaintiff shall Show Cause, in writing, no later than October 28, 2015 at 4:30 p.m., why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.