UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 19, 2012
MATTHEW JAMES DURY,
LT. J. ZARAGOZA, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO COURT'S ORDER OF DECEMBER 3, 2012 (ECF No. 12) SECOND ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO NOTIFY COURT IF THIS ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED FIFTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Matthew James Dury ("Plaintiff") is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.
On December 3, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court if this action should be dismissed so that he could pursue his claim in an existing action, Dury v. Copenhaver, No. 1:12-cv-01726-LJO-GSA (PC). (Doc. 12). On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a purported response. (Doc. 13). Although Plaintiff identified the Court's order, his response did not address the Court's inquiry regarding dismissal of this action. Rather, Plaintiff made numerous statements regarding alleged conduct by Federal Bureau of Prisons staff and by this Court. Plaintiff's response shall be disregarded because it is not responsive to the Court's order. Plaintiff will be given a final opportunity to notify the Court if this action should be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's response filed on December 17, 2012 is DISREGARDED; and
2. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff SHALL NOTIFY the Court if this action should be dismissed so that he can pursue the instant claim in Dury v. Copenhaver. If Plaintiff fails to file a timely notice, the pending application to proceed in forma pauperis shall be granted and this action shall proceed as filed. The complaint will then be screened in due course.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.