Opinion
Uhuru Sugal Vaughn, Plaintiff, Pro se, Chowchilla, CA.
For J Camacho, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, J Camacho, Correctional Officer, official capacity, Defendants: Susan E Coleman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Scott Matthew Nenni, Burke Williams and Sorensen LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
For G Sharperson, Correctional Officer, individual capacity, G Sharperson Correctional Officer, official capacity, Defendants: Janine K Jeffery, LEAD ATTORNEY, Reily and Jeffery, Northridge, CA.
For F Villalobos, Sergeant, individual capacity, F Villalobos, Sergeant, official capacity, Defendants: Paul Joseph Coony, LEAD ATTORNEY, CAAG - California Attorney General Office, Los Angeles, CA.
Present: HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
SUZANNE H. SEGAL, J.
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On November 27, 2013, Uhuru Sugal Vaughn (" Plaintiff"), a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the " Complaint"). On April 7, 2014, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend due to various pleading deficiencies. (Dkt. No. 6). On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (the " FAC"). (Dkt. No. 7). On February 20, 2015, and March 23, 2015, respectively, Defendants F. Villalobos and J. Camacho filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's FAC (the " Motions to Dismiss"). (Dkt. Nos. 26, 32).
On April 30, 2015, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order Granting in Part Motions to Dismiss (the " Order") due to pleading deficiencies in Plaintiff's FAC. (Dkt. No. 38). Based on the Order, Plaintiff was required to file a Second Amended Complaint by May 30, 2015, if he still wished to pursue this action. (See Order at 12). The Court expressly warned Plaintiff that failure to timely file a Second Amended Complaint would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. (See id. at 13-14). As of today, however, Plaintiff has failed to file a Second Amended Complaint or otherwise communicate with the Court.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing either a Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies of the FAC, or a declaration under penalty of perjury explaining why he is unable to do so.
If Petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner's convenience. Petitioner is again warned that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his address of record and on counsel for Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.