(PC) Reyna v. Kings County Jail Medical ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PETE REYNA, Case No. 1:19-cv-01202-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 KINGS COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL, et al., (ECF No. 26) 15 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Pete Reyna (“Plaintiff”) is a former pretrial detainee, currently a state prisoner, 18 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendant Siddiqi1 for 20 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment arising out of the delay in Plaintiff’s medical care. 21 On April 17, 2020, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.) 22 After reviewing the motion, on April 21, 2020, the Court denied the motion without prejudice to 23 re-filing in compliance with Rand v. Rowland and the Court’s Local Rules. (ECF No. 25.) 24 Defendant re-filed the motion for summary judgment on April 22, 2020, and filed a proof 25 of service the next day. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) In the re-filed motion, Plaintiff was provided with 26 notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 27 28 1 Erroneously sued as “Sadiki.” 1 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. 2 Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 26-1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 3 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of no 4 opposition was therefore due on or before May 18, 2020. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to 5 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact 6 with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action 7 should not be dismissed with prejudice. 8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 9 RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be 10 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order 11 by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendant’s April 22, 2020, motion for 12 summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, this 13 matter will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: June 1, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28