1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DEAN MARTIN SEALEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00075-EPG (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW

CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT

13 v. BE DISMISSED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH

14 CSATF STATE PRISON, et al., COURT ORDERS AND TO PROSECUTE

THIS CASE

15 Defendants.

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

16

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO SEND

17 PLAINTIFF A FORM APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS FOR A

18 PRISONER AND A SECTION 1983 CIVIL

RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM

19 20 Dean Sealey (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this in this action. 21 Plaintiff filed a letter commencing this action in the United States District Court for the 22 Northern Division of California on October 21, 2022. On that same day, Plaintiff was directed 23 to submit a completed complaint (or petition) on the proper form and to file an application to 24 proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3). Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time 25 to file his complaint (ECF No. 8), and Plaintiff was given until January 9, 2023, to file his 26 complaint and to either pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis 27 (ECF No. 9). The case was transferred to the Eastern District on January 18, 2023. (ECF No. 28 12). 1 Plaintiff’s deadline to file his complaint and to either pay the filing fee or file an 2 application to proceed in forma pauperis has passed, and Plaintiff failed to do either. 3 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to shall show cause as to why this action should not 4 be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply with court orders and to prosecute this 5 case. If, in response, Plaintiff files his complaint and either pays the filing fee or files an 6 application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will discharge this order to show cause. 7 As Plaintiff is complaining about the failure to properly process his grievance, the Court 8 also provides Plaintiff with the following legal standards that are potentially relevant to his 9 federal claim(s). 10 “[A prison] grievance procedure is a procedural right only, it does not confer any 11 substantive right upon the inmates.” Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) 12 (alteration in original) (quoting Azeez v. DeRobertis, 568 F. Supp. 8, 10 (N.D. Ill. 1982)); see 13 also Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003) (no liberty interest in processing of 14 appeals because no entitlement to a specific grievance procedure); Massey v. Helman, 259 F.3d 15 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2001) (existence of grievance procedure confers no liberty interest on 16 prisoner); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). “Hence, it does not give rise to a 17 protected liberty interest requiring the procedural protections envisioned by the Fourteenth 18 Amendment.” Azeez, 568 F. Supp. at 10; Spencer v. Moore, 638 F. Supp. 315, 316 (E.D. Mo. 19 1986). 20 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. Plaintiff has thirty days from the date of service of this order to show cause as to 22 why this action should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to comply 23 with court orders and to prosecute this case. If, in response, Plaintiff files his 24 complaint and either pays the filing fee or files an application to proceed in 25 forma pauperis, the Court will discharge this order to show cause. 26 2. If Plaintiff fails to file a response to this order, the Court will issue findings and 27 recommendations to a district judge, recommending dismissal of this action. 28 eee en eee EE OE OIE IEE IED OE

1 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff a form application to proceed in 2 forma pauperis for a prisoner and a section 1983 civil rights complaint form. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

> ll Dated: _ January 19, 2023 [sf hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28