UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 17, 2011
D. ADAMS, ET AL., PROSECUTE
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT RAYMOND SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Quetzal Contreraz ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 30, 2004. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed on January 22, 2009, against defendants Derral Adams, Michael Raymond, and Darrow Hetebrink, on Plaintiff's claims for violation his right to Free Exercise under the First Amendment, and his right to Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, for denying Plaintiff a religious diet, the right to wear facial hair, and accommodations to perform a full moon ritual, consistent with religious tenets of the Olin Pyramid Religion. (Doc. 32.)*fn1
On December 17, 2010, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to serve process in this action upon Defendant Michael Raymond. (Doc. 58.) On March 31, 2011, a Waiver of Service signed by Defendant Michael Raymond on March 19, 2011 was filed with the Court, giving Defendant Raymond sixty days from March 17, 2011, in which to file an answer or motion under Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. 62.) More than sixty days have passed, and Defendant Raymond has not filed an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff's complaint.*fn2 (See Court Docket.) Plaintiff has not filed a motion under Rule 55. (Id.)
II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendant Raymond 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 Raymond 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 a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.