Opinion
1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC)
10-27-2022
RUBEN FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. CLARK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PARTIES' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER (ECF NO. 71)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”') is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's first amended complaint against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Gallagher, Alfaro, Goss, Juarez, Hence, and Llamas for failure to provide outside exercise in violation of the Eighth Amendment and against Defendants Baughman, Clark, Goss, Hence, Gallagher, Llamas, and Gamboa for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On August 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery. (ECF No. 65.) On August 22, 2022, the Court issued an order directing the parties to meet and confer regarding the discovery dispute, and to file a joint statement following the parties' conference. The Court further stayed briefing on Plaintiff's motion to compel. (ECF No. 68.)
Defendants filed a response on September 21, 2022, indicating that after the parties met and conferred by telephone, Plaintiff refused to sign the prepared joint statement and stated that he had written counsel a letter. (ECF No. 70.) Plaintiff informed staff that he wanted to wait until counsel responded to his letter, and he did not disclose the substance of the letter. As of September 21, 2022, counsel had not received Plaintiff's letter. (Id.)
On September 23, 2022, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's motion to compel would be maintained on the docket and briefing would remain stayed. (ECF No. 71.) The Court further directed the parties to file a further status report informing the Court whether Defendants had received Plaintiff's letter and whether the discovery dispute might be resolved without further intervention from the Court. The parties were encouraged to engage in a further meet and confer conference if possible, rather than attempting to communicate exclusively by mail, and were reminded that electronic signatures (authorized by telephone or video) were acceptable, and wet signatures on the status report were not required. The parties were directed to file the further joint status report within thirty days. (Id.)
The parties' further joint status report was due on or before October 24, 2022. A status report has not been received by the Court as of the date of this order. While the parties both independently requested extension of the dispositive motion deadline in this action, the Court has received no communication regarding the status of Plaintiff's motion to compel or the parties' discussion thereof.
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of this order, Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to show cause by written response regarding the parties' failure to file a status report addressing the status of Plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendants may also comply with this order by filing a status report in compliance with the Court's September 23, 2022 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.