__________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv-02203-FWS-ADS Date: June 27, 2024 Title: Owens D. Kelly v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION

On December 7, 2022, Plaintiff Owens D. Kelly (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging civil rights violations (“Complaint”). (Dkt. 1.) On November 21, 2023, Defendant State of California, by and through California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Board of Parole Hearings, and Office of the Governor, State of California, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”). (Dkt. 28.) On February 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment (“Motion for Default Judgment”). (Dkt. 32.) Both the Motion to Dismiss and the Motion for Default Judgment were unopposed. (See generally Dkt.) On April 9, 2024, the court denied the Motion for Default Judgment, and granted the Motion to Dismiss, with leave to file an amended complaint by May 6, 2024 (“April 9, 2024, Order”). (See Dkt. 36.) On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Response to the April 9, 2024, Order (“Response”), requesting the court, in summary (1) not to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, (2) to order Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint, and (3) to schedule a hearing with Defendant present to answer Plaintiff’s complaint. (See Dkt. 37.) On June 14, 2024, the court issued an order regarding the Response, that included orders denying Plaintiff’s requests set forth in the Response. (Dkt. 38.) As of the date of this Order, the court observes Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or other pleading. (See generally Dkt.)

In light of this record, the court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than July 19, 2024, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Plaintiff may ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:22-cv-02203-FWS-ADS Date: June 27, 2024 Title: Owens D. Kelly v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al. discharge the Order to Show Cause by filing an amended complaint. Failure to adequately comply with the court’s order may result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629 (1962) (“The authority of a federal trial court to dismiss a plaintiff’s action with prejudice because of his failure to prosecute cannot seriously be doubted.”); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[C]ourts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496 (9th Cir. 1984) (“It is within the inherent power of the court to sua sponte dismiss a case for lack of prosecution.”).

Initials of Deputy Clerk: mku

____________________________________________________________________________