Opinion
1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC)
06-30-2022
SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Plaintiff, v. CLENDENIN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
(ECF NOS. 28-30)
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”') is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare and Institution Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000).
As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without screening by the Court. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff's complaint, filed December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State Hospitals (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals - Coalinga (“DSH - Coalinga”), Stephanie Clendenin, Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt.
On November 29, 2021, Defendants DSH, DSH - Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 28-30.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before December 23, 2021. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss has expired, and he has not filed an opposition or other response. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court's order by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' November 29, 2021 motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court's order, this matter will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.