Opinion
David Rowland Young, Plaintiff, Pro se, Imperial, CA.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL
Jacqueline Chooljian, United States Magistrate Judge.
On December 22, 2014, David Rowland Young (" plaintiff"), who is in custody at Centinela State Prison (" CSP"), is proceeding pro se, and has paid the filing fee, filed a Civil Rights Complaint (" Complaint") pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" Section 1983") against multiple defendants connected with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (" CDCR") and the Ironwood State Prison (" ISP") where plaintiff was formerly housed. Plaintiff appears to have sued (1) California Correctional Health Care Services (" CCHCS"); (2) Dr. Lee (" Lee"), ISP Chief Medical Officer; (3) L.D. Zamora (" Zamora"), Chief of the CCHCS Office of Third Level Appeals; as well as (4) multiple " Unnamed CDCR employees at [ISP and CSP]" (" Doe Defendants") (collectively " defendants"). (Complaint at 1, 6). Plaintiff sued the individual defendants in their individual capacities only, and sought monetary and injunctive relief from all defendants. (Complaint at 6, 15).
Since internal page numbering for the Complaint is inconsistent, for ease of reference the Court cites to the pages in the Complaint in the order in which they appear, beginning with page one.
On April 9, 2015, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend and afforded plaintiff an opportunity, if he wished to pursue this matter, to file a First Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days, i.e., by April 23, 2015. The Court expressly cautioned plaintiff that the failure timely to file a First Amended Complaint may result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice on the grounds set forth in the April 9 Order and/or for failure diligently to prosecute. To date, although the foregoing deadline has expired, plaintiff has failed to file a First Amended Complaint or to seek an extension of time to do so.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall show cause in writing, on or before May 21, 2015, why this action should not be dismissed based upon the deficiencies identified in the April 9 Order and/or based upon plaintiff's failure to prosecute. If plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may expedite matters by instead signing and returning the attached Notice of Dismissal by the foregoing deadline.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply with this order and/or to show good cause, will result in the dismissal of this action with or without prejudice based upon the deficiencies identified in the April 9 Order, plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action and/or plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.