Opinion
1:19-cv-00968-ADA-BAM (PC)
01-10-2023
RUBEN FIGUEROA, Plaintiff, v. CLARK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF NO. 80) TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Ruben Figueroa (“Plaintiff”') is a former 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 December 2, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. (ECF No. 80.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 80-1.) 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 27, 2022. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. 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' December 2, 2022 motion for summary judgment. 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.