1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION 12] JOSE A. CASTRO, No. CV 19-8225-JGB (AGR) 13 Plaintiff, 14 V. ORDER OF DISMISSAL LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

19 On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff, an incarcerated inmate proceeding pro se, filed civil rights action pursuant to

against Los Angeles Count Sheriff's Department and Deputy Bonner alleging violation of his religious rights. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants denied his rights to Jehovah Witness church services during his incarceration. (Dkt. No. 1.) 24 The Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of filing fees and ordered the United States Marshal to proceed with the service of process upon the 26 || Defendants Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and Deputy Bonner. (Dkt. Nos. 27| 4,5.) 28

1 On October 31, 2019, November 4 and 25, 2019, the court’s mail was returned 2|| as undeliverable by the postal service indicating “Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to Forward, Return to Sender - Released.” (Dkt. No. 7, 8 and 14.) 4 On November 21, 2019, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. (Dkt. No. 11.) 6 On November 26, 2019, the Court issued an Order re Discovery and Motions that 7| set the discovery and motions deadlines in this case. (Dkt. No. 13.) 8 On December 9, 2019, the mail was returned as undeliverable by the postal 9| service indicating “Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to Forward - 10| Released.” (Dkt. No. 18.) 11 On March 6, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) 12| on or before April 6, 2020, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. (Dkt. No. 20.) The OSC 14 explained that Local Rule 41-6 requires that a Plaintiff proceeding pro se must keep the Court apprised of the Plaintiff's current address. In addition, Local Rule 41-6 provides 16] that “the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution” 17 | if the Plaintiff fails to notify the Court in writing of Plaintiff's current address within 15 18] days after mail is returned as undeliverable by the Postal Service. 19 The OSC notified Plaintiff that filing a Notice of Current Address on or before April 20] 6, 2020, shall be deemed compliance with the OSC, and had warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. /d at 2. 22 On March 20, 2020, the Court’s order was returned as “Return to Sender, 23 Unclaimed, Unable to forward” and “Released” by the postal service. (Dkt. No. 21.) . Plaintiff has failed to notify the court in writing of Plaintiff's current address within 25 15 days after mail is returned as undeliverable as required in Local Rule 41-6. 26 27 28

1 Accordingly, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without 2| prejudice. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

,

,

] 734 (1962). 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 i gy DATED: March 31, 2020 Sh sii 8 UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

18 19 20 21 a2 23 24 25 26 27 28