(PC)Butler v. Kings County

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LONDON MARQUIS BUTLER, No. 1:24-cv-00193 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY MATTER SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE KINGS COUNTY, et al., (ECF No. 11) 15 Defendants.

PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN 16 THE ALTERNATIVE, THE FILING OF HIS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DUE IN 17 THIRTY DAYS 19 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint (“SAC”). Plaintiff will be given thirty days to take either course of action.

26 I. RELEVANT FACTS 27 On July 3, 2024, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was screened, and the Court found that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. ECF No. 11 at 12-13. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint and was given thirty days to do so. See id. at 13.

3 On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff’s motion for a ninety-day extension of time to file the amended complaint was docketed. ECF No. 12. Two days later, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request.

5 ECF No. 13.

6 More than ninety days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. He has not requested another extension of time to do so, either.

8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Both the Court and the public have an interest in the disposal of cases in an expedient manner. See generally Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998) (presuming public has interest in expeditious litigation). Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint as ordered has stalled this process, and it warrants the Court issuing an order directing him to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. He will be given thirty days to do so. As an alternative to Plaintiff filing a showing of cause, within the same thirty-day period, Plaintiff may instead file the second amended complaint as he was previously ordered to do.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. Within thirty days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall SHOW CAUSE why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, and 20 2. As an alternative to file a showing of cause, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.

21 Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: November 8, 2024 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE