1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 DANIEL DEALBA, ) No. CV 20-2366-PA (AGR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 WARDEN R.C. JOHNSON, et al., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE ) TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, if 18 there be any, in writing on or before November 24, 2021, why this action should not be 19 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. 20 A. Procedural History 21 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended 22 Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff sued the following defendants for civil rights violations: 23 (1) Warden R.C. Johnson; (2) Corrections Officer Karanikolas; and (3) Board of Parole 24 Commissioners R. Grounds, B. Roberts, D. Long (incorrectly sued as Lang) and A. 25 Soares. (Dkt. No. 6.) 26 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 31.) The court set a 27 briefing schedule and granted Plaintiff three extensions of time to file an opposition on 28 1 order setting a deadline of October 28, 2021 was returned as undeliverable by the 2 postal service and filed on September 3, 2021. A notation on the envelope indicates 3 Plaintiff was paroled. (Dkt. No. 54.) The court’s subsequent docket entry was also 4 returned as undeliverable by the postal service and filed on September 17, 2021. (Dkt. 5 No. 55.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by the 6 deadline of October 28, 2021 and did not request an extension of time to do so. 7 B. Discussion 8 It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s 9 action because of his failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ.

(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

,

,

2d 734 (1962) (court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to 12 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in 13 district court calendars). 14 A party proceeding pro se “must keep the Court and all other parties informed of 15 the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address.” Local 16 Rule 41-6. When a court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address 17 of record is returned as undeliverable by the postal service, and that plaintiff has not 18 filed a notice of change of address within 14 days after service of the court order, “the 19 Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”

20 The court’s August 24, 2021 order was returned as undeliverable by the postal 21 service. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address and has not responded to 22 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC. 23 C. ORDER 24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before November 24, 2021, Plaintiff 25 shall show good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be 26 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court 27 order. 28 1 If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or 2| otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before November 24, 2021, 3|| this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to 4| prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 6 7 Ai $A Kean DATED: November 8, 2021 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28