Opinion
2:24-cv-02611-MEMF-AJR
05-20-2024
Joe Alfred Taylor-El, III and Darrick L. Jones-Bey v. Leanne Lundy, et al.
PRESENT: HONORABLE A. JOEL RICHLIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On March 31, 2024, pro se Plaintiffs Joe Alfred Taylor-El, III and Darrick L. Jones-Bey (“Plaintiffs”), both inmates in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) at California State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster (“CSP-LAC”), filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”). (Dkt. 1.) Plaintiffs did not file a complaint, but appeared to bring claims under the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. (Id. at 2-4.)
On April 10, 2024, the District Judge issued an Order denying the Motion without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file a renewed motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order after Plaintiffs file a complaint. (Dkt. 7.) As of today, Plaintiffs have not filed a complaint or any other pleading. Accordingly, there is no operative pleading in this action. The Court cannot move this action forward unless and until Plaintiffs file a complaint of some kind. Once a complaint is filed, the Court will review the complaint for compliance with pleading standards and determine whether service of the complaint is appropriate.
Therefore, the Court orders Plaintiffs to file a complaint by June 19, 2024 if they still want to pursue this action, or show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. If Plaintiffs choose to file a complaint, it should bear the docket number assigned to this case (2:24-cv-02611-MEMF-AJR), be labeled “Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself without reference to any other document (except any document that Plaintiffs choose to attach to the Complaint as an exhibit). Plaintiffs are encouraged to state their claims in simple language and provide only a brief statement of supporting facts, omitting facts that are not relevant. Should Plaintiffs decide to file a Complaint, they are strongly encouraged to utilize the CV-66 form complaint attached to this Order.
Plaintiffs are expressly advised that if they do not file a complaint by the Court's deadline or respond to this order, the Court will recommend that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders. If Plaintiffs no longer want to pursue this action, they may voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is attached for Plaintiff's convenience.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Attachment:
CV-09, Notice of Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a) or
(c). CV-66, United States District Court, Central District of California Civil Rights Complaint.