Shead v. Vang

Full title: HERMAN D. SHEAD, Plaintiff, v. C/O VANG, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 31, 2012

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 31, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00006-AWI-SKO PC

07-31-2012

HERMAN D. SHEAD, Plaintiff, v. C/O VANG, Defendant.

Sheila K. Oberto

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. 64)

FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Herman D. Shead, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 5, 2009. On January 5, 2012, the Court issued the second scheduling order, which required Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on or before July 9, 2012. Plaintiff was warned that the failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006). However, Plaintiff has not complied with or otherwise responded to the order.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute;
2. Defendant is relieved of his obligation to file a pretrial statement pending further order; and
3. The failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE