From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patino v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
21-cv-03665-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)

Opinion

21-cv-03665-WHO (PR)

07-07-2021

PHILLIP PATINO, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

WILLIAM H. ORRICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After plaintiff Phillip Patino sent the Court a letter, the Clerk sent him notices directing him to file a complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Patino has not complied with the Clerk's Notices, nor responded in any way.

Accordingly, Patino is ordered to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute and for failing to comply with the Clerk's Notices. The response to the order to show cause must be filed on or before August 16, 2021. No extensions of time will be granted. In the alternative to showing cause why this action should not be dismissed, Patino may avoid dismissal by (i) filing a complaint (on this Court's form), and (ii) paying the full filing fee of $402.00, or filing a complete IFP application, by August 16, 2021. Failure to file a response by August 16, 2021, or failure to file a complaint and an IFP application (or pay the full filing fee) by that date, will result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Patino v. Doe

United States District Court, Northern District of California
Jul 7, 2021
21-cv-03665-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)
Case details for

Patino v. Doe

Case Details

Full title:PHILLIP PATINO, Plaintiff, v. JOHN DOE, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Northern District of California

Date published: Jul 7, 2021

Citations

21-cv-03665-WHO (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jul. 7, 2021)