(PC) Ardds v. Hicks ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE L. ARDDS, Case No. 1:18-cv-01324-NONE-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 HICKS, et al., (ECF No. 69) 15 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 20 Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants Hicks, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, 21 and Sanchez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of the alleged 22 November 9, 2017 assault; (2) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, Sanchez, 23 and Severns1 for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of their alleged 24 attempt to improperly assign Plaintiff outside of his designated EOP mental health level of care 25 unit and place him in an occupied cell after a direction that he receive a single cell placement; and 26 (3) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, and Sanchez for failure to protect 27 Plaintiff from an alleged assault by Inmate Hall on November 9, 2017, in violation of the Eighth 28 Amendment. 1 On June 25, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that 2 Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies related to the claims asserted in this 3 action as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (ECF No. 69.) In the motion, Plaintiff was provided 4 with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 5 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. 6 Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411–12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 69-1.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7 230(l) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non- 8 opposition was due on or before July 19, 2021. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to 9 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has expired, and he has not otherwise been in contact 10 with the Court. Plaintiff will be permitted one final opportunity to show cause why this action 11 should not be dismissed with prejudice. 12 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 13 RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be 14 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order 15 by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ June 25, 2021 motion for 16 summary judgment. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, this 17 matter will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: August 2, 2021 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28