UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 22, 2010
LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ, PLAINTIFF,
MOEROYK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT MOERDYK SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Louis Richard Fresquez ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action alleging prison officials violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"). Plaintiff filed this action on March 11, 2003 in the Northern District of California. The case now proceeds on Plaintiff's amended complaint filed on March 18, 2003, against defendants Maka and Moeroyk ("Defendants"), on Plaintiffs ADA and RA claims concerning conditions of confinement.
On April 27, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to serve process in this action upon Defendants Maka and Moeroyk. (Doc. 52.) On June 16, 2010, a Waiver of Service signed by Defendant Pieter L. Moerdyk*fn1 on May 7, 2010 was filed with the Court, giving Defendant Moerdyk sixty days from May 5, 2010, in which to file an answer or motion under Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff's complaint.*fn2 (Doc. 58.) More than ninety days have passed, and Defendant Moerdyk has not filed an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff's complaint. (See Court Docket.) Plaintiff has not filed any documents in this action since March 23, 2010. (Id.)
II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendant Moerydk should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute against him.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written response to the court, showing cause why Defendant Moerydk should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute against him; and
2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.