CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. SA CV 22-206 DMG (MRW) Date September 1, 2023 Title Triefenbach v. McGuire

Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner, U.S. Magistrate Judge James Muñoz n/a Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys for Plaintiff: Attorneys for Defendant: n/a n/a Proceedings: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL

1. In July 2023, Defendant Tovar moved for summary judgment in this pro se prisoner civil action. (Docket # 62.) The Court informed Plaintiff of his obligation to respond to the motion by or before August 7. (Docket # 63.) To date, however, Plaintiff has not filed anything responsive to the motion.

2. The Court could rightly terminate the action today under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and based on the substance of the unopposed motion. Heinemann v. Satterberg,

(9th Cir. 2013). Further, the Court is aware that Plaintiff has been unable to advance service and discovery issues due to his chaotic litigation filings to date.

3. Nevertheless, in the interests of fairness to a self-represented prisoner, the Court instead ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause as to why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to respond to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff may cure this OSC by filing a statement explaining his failure to comply with the Court’s previous scheduling order and his substantive response to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiff’s response to this OSC will be due by September 27. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a notice of non-opposition to the motion.

Failure to comply with the terms of this order may result in a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Proc. 41(b). Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger,

(9th Cir. 2019).