Opinion
EDCV 23-1260-VBF (KS)
11-25-2024
A hadi A bu-Al Muhammad v. County of Riverside et al.
Gay Roberson
Gay Roberson
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE: KAREN L. STEVENSON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CRIMINAL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL
On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff, an inmate at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint alleging constitutional violations against the County and City of Riverside, multiple Riverside police officers, Riverside Community Hospital, two doctors, and multiple unidentified Doe defendants (“Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 1.) On March 14, 2024, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend and set a deadline of 30 days for Plaintiff to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 16.) The Court also warned Plaintiff in bold letters that the “failure to timely comply with this Order may result in a recommendation of dismissal.” (Id. at 17.)
After four extensions of time, on October 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed his FAC. (Dkt. No. 29.) However, the FAC was clearly incomplete and lacked Plaintiff's signature. Therefore, on October 31, 2024, the Clerk's Office issued a Notice to Filer of Deficiencies, informing Plaintiff that his FAC contained no signature. (Dkt. No. 30.) On November 4, 2024, the Court then issued a minute order directing Plaintiff to file a signed, complete FAC. (Dkt. No. 31.) Three weeks have now passed since Plaintiff's deadline to re-file a complete, signed FAC, and Plaintiff has neither filed the FAC nor requested an extension of time to do so. Accordingly, the Court could properly recommend dismissal of the action for Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's November 4, 2024 Order pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that an action may be subject to involuntary dismissal if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.”
However, in the interest of justice, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE on or before December 26, 2024, why the Court should not recommend that the action be dismissed under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff's response to this Order to Show Cause must include either:
(1) a request for an extension of time to file his FAC accompanied by a sworn declaration that establishes good cause for both Plaintiff's failure to timely file the FAC and his need for additional time; or
(2) a complete, signed FAC that fully complies with the Local Rules, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this Court's orders, most notably the Court's March 14, 2024 Memorandum and Order Dismissing Complaint With Leave to Amend.
Alternatively, if Plaintiff concludes he is currently unable to comply with the deadlines necessary for prosecuting this action, Plaintiff may discharge this Order and dismiss this case without prejudice by filing a signed document entitled a “Notice of Voluntary Dismissal” requesting the voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff is expressly cautioned that the failure to respond to this Order WILL result in a recommendation of dismissal based on Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.