(PC) Felix v. Clendenin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT EMERSON FELIX, Case No. 1:19-cv-01784-AWI-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 13 v. FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 14 CLENDENIN, et al., (ECF Nos. 28–30) 15 Defendants. TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Plaintiff Scott Emerson Felix (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained pursuant to California Welfare 20 and Institution Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners within the meaning of 21 the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2000). 22 As Plaintiff is a civil detainee and has paid the filing fee, he is not a prisoner or 23 proceeding in forma pauperis, and therefore the Court ordered the complaint to be served without 24 screening by the Court. (ECF No. 13.) This action therefore proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint, 25 filed December 23, 2019, (ECF No. 1), against Defendants California Department of State 26 Hospitals (“DSH”), Department of State Hospitals – Coalinga (“DSH – Coalinga”), Stephanie 27 Clendenin, Brandon Price, Francis Hicks, and Matthew Zelt. 28 /// 1 On November 29, 2021, Defendants DSH, DSH – Coalinga, Clendenin, Price, and Hicks 2 filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 28–30.) Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l) and Federal Rule of 3 Civil Procedure 6(d), Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition was due on or before 4 December 23, 2021. The deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss has 5 expired, and he has not filed an opposition or other response. Plaintiff will be permitted one final 6 opportunity to show cause why this action should not be dismissed with prejudice. 7 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause by WRITTEN 8 RESPONSE within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order why this action should not be 9 dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff may comply with the Court’s order 10 by filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ November 29, 2021 motion 11 to dismiss. Plaintiff is warned that if he fails to comply with the Court’s order, this matter 12 will be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to prosecute. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: June 30, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28