The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS GUERRERO AND
GARCIA SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR PLAINTIFF'S
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AGAINST THEM THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Eric Charles Rodney K'napp ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Original Complaint commencing this action on November 22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on November 13, 2008, against defendants Warden Derral G. Adams, Lieutenant ("Lt.") E. Smith, Lt. J. T. Tucker, Associate Warden S. Sherman, and D. Selvy (Classification Services Representative), for retaliating against Plaintiff, and against defendants K. Motty, Sgt. C. Pugliese, Lt. Smith, R. Guerrero, Appeals Coordinator Cooper, Appeals Coordinator V. R. Garcia, Appeals Coordinator R. Hall, and Does 1-5 (Mailroom Workers) for interfering with his right to send mail in violation of the First Amendment.*fn1 (Doc. 16.)
On March 14, 2012, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to serve process in this action upon Defendants Guerrero and Garcia. (Doc. 89.) On November 13, 2012, the Court received two USM-285 forms from the Marshal indicating that personal service was effected upon Defendants Guerrero and Garcia on October 12, 2012 and October 10, 2012, respectively, which gave the Defendants twenty-one days in which to file an answer or motion under Rule 12 in response to Plaintiff's complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 94.) More than sixty days have passed, and Defendants Guerrero and Garcia have not filed an answer, a motion under Rule 12, or any other response to Plaintiff's complaint. (See Court Docket.) Plaintiff has not filed a motion under Rule 55. Id.
Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why Defendants Guerrero and Garcia should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute against them.
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 Defendants Guerrero and Garcia should not be dismissed from this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute against them; and
2. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result a recommendation that this action be dismissed.