(PC) Harris v. Quillen ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, ) Case No. 1:17-cv-01370-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW ) CAUSE 13 v. ) (ECF No. 98) ) 14 T. QUILLEN, et al., ) ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND 15 Defendants. ) RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING ) PLAINTIFF TWENTY-ONE DAYS TO FILE 16 ) PRETRIAL STATEMENT ) 17 ) ) (ECF Nos. 101, 102) 18 ) 19 Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 21 On September 29, 2021, the court directed Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on or before 22 February 4, 2022. (ECF. No. 97.) However, Plaintiff failed to file his pretrial statement. Therefore, 23 on February 15, 2022, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause within twenty-one (21) days why the 24 action should not be dismissed. (ECF. No. 98.) Plaintiff was warned that failure to file a response 25 would result in dismissal of the action. (Id. at 2.) After Plaintiff failed to file a response to the order 26 to show, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations on March 23, 2022 recommending 27 dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 102.) However, on March 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to 28 1 || the order to show cause which was docketed by the Clerk of Court on March 23, 2022, just prior to tk 2 || Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 101.) 3 In his response to the order to show cause, Plaintiff indicates that his legal material is being 4 || stored in the law library and staff exchange the materials on a weekly basis. (ECF No. 101 at 2.) 5 || Plaintiff further submits that he has been busy litigating other cases pending in this Court and has had 6 || to prioritize such filings. Ud. at 2-3.) Based on Plaintiff's contentions, the Court will discharge the 7 || order to show cause and grant Plaintiff twenty-one (21) days to file his pretrial statement. However, 8 || Plaintiff is advised that he must comply with any and all deadlines imposed in this case. The fact tha 9 || Plaintiff has to simultaneously litigate other matters is not good cause for the failure to comply with 10 || the deadlines in this case, and no further extensions of time will be granted upon such basis. See, e.g 11 || Carter v. Dawson, No. 1:07-cv-01325-OWW-SMS, 2011 WL 2160566, *2 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2011) 12 || (warning prisoner that being preoccupied by preparing pleadings in other cases does not constitute 13 || “good cause”). Furthermore, Plaintiff has been aware of the deadline to file his pretrial statement 14 || since September 29, 2021. (ECF No. 97.) 15 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The order to show cause issued on February 15, 2022 (ECF No. 98) is discharged; 17 2. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 23, 2022 (ECF No. 102), are 18 vacated; 19 3. Plaintiff is granted twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order to file 20 his pretrial statement; and 21 4. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of the action by the assigned 22 District Judge. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. A (ee 25 |! Dated: _March 24, 2022 OF 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28