Opinion
2:20-CV-35-HCN
07-29-2022
JACOB ECKER, Plaintiff, v. MIKE HADDON et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. United States District Judge
On February 1, 2022, the court screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to its statutory review function under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and “order[ed] Plaintiff to file a third amended complaint to cure deficiencies before further pursuing claims.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1. Plaintiff has not complied with that order, and has not otherwise communicated with the court since filing his Second Amended Complaint on May 19, 2021, see Dkt. No. 17.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file a brief showing cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to comply with court orders no later than August 29, 2022. See D. Utah Civ. R. 83-1.3(e).
2. The Clerk's Office shall mail Plaintiff the Pro Se Litigant Guide with a blank-form civil-rights complaint which Plaintiff must use if he wishes to pursue a third amended complaint, and a copy of the court's February 1, 2022 Order, Dkt. No. 18.
3. If Plaintiff fails to cure the deficiencies according to the instructions set forth in the court's February 1 Order no later than August 29, 2022, this action will be dismissed without further notice.
4. Plaintiff shall not try to serve the Third Amended Complaint on Defendants; instead, the court will perform its screening function and determine itself whether the amended complaint warrants service. No motion for service of process is needed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [in forma pauperis] cases.”). All defendants and claims should be included in a Third Amended Complaint, if filed, and will not be considered further by the court unless properly included. This is the FINAL order allowing Plaintiff to cure deficiencies. If a Third Amended Complaint is filed, the court will screen it for dismissal or service of process.