IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 4, 2009
RAHEEM HANIF, PLAINTIFF,
SOLANO COUNTY JAIL ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1) and a March 20, 2009, order to show cause (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has failed to timely respond to the order to show cause.
In the order to show cause, the court stated: On February 6, 2009, the court directed plaintiff to resolve the fee status for this case within 30 days of the date of the order. Plaintiff was warned that failure to comply may result in dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders and rules. See Local Rule 11-110.
The court directed plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure resolve fees. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a), 1915(a)(2). Plaintiff was warned that failure to respond to the court's order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110 Plaintiff has failed to respond. The court, therefore, finds it appropriate to dismiss this case for plaintiff's failure resolve fees, as well as for failure to prosecute and comply with court rules and orders. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal and close this file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.