Nunez

(PC) Hoke v. Nunez

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20252:25-cv-00275California925 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LAURENCE HOKE, Case No. 2:25-cv-0275-JDP (P) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 M. NUNEZ, et al.,

15 Defendants. 16 17 On April 16, 2025, I screened plaintiff’s complaint and notified him that the complaint 18 failed to state a claim. ECF No. 5. I ordered him to file, within thirty days, an amended 19 complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. Id. Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended 20 complaint or otherwise to respond to the court order. Therefore, on May 29, 2025, I ordered 21 plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute, failure 22 to comply with court orders, and failure to state a claim. ECF No. 8. I notified plaintiff that if he 23 wished to continue with this lawsuit, he must file an amended complaint. I also warned plaintiff 24 that failure to comply with the May 29, 2025 order would result in a recommendation that this 25 action be dismissed. Id. The deadline…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.