(PS) Murphy v. Geico Insurance Company

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, No. 2:20–cv–1455–JAM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

13 v. 14 GEICO INSURANCE CO., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Defendant alleging multiple 18 California state law claims against defendant, alleging diversity jurisdiction, and requesting leave 19 to proceed in forma pauperis. (See ECF Nos. 1, 2.) On July 22, 2020, the assigned district judge 20 granted by minute order plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, and the clerk of the 21 court sent the summons to plaintiff. (ECF No. 3, 4.) On September 14, 2020, the undersigned 22 noted that plaintiff had failed to process the summons. Thus, the undersigned ordered that the 23 clerk resend the service documents to plaintiff, and that “within 30 days . . . , plaintiff shall 24 submit to the [U.S. Marshal] the necessary documents and within 10 days thereafter file a 25 statement with the court” that…