(PS)Jones

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LLOYD DYLAN JONES, No. 2:19-cv-01814 JAM AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DERIK TREDINNICK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 33) that the undersigned 18 reconsider the pendingrecommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure 19 to prosecute(ECF No. 32). 20 This is the second time that dismissal for failure to prosecute has been recommended, and 21 that plaintiff has sought to rewind the clock so that he could continue to pursue the case. On 22 August 18, 2020, after plaintiff failed to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss, the undersigned 23 ordered plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 24 ECF No. 24. Plaintiff failed to respond to the OSC, and the undersigned accordingly 25 recommended dismissal on September 2, 2020. ECF No. 28. On September 18, 2020, plaintiff 26 filed a belated response to the OSC, explaining that problems…