Daniel Dealba v. R.C. Johnson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION

DANIEL DEALBA, ) No. CV 20-2366-PA (AGR) )

Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WARDEN R.C. JOHNSON, et al., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE ) TO PROSECUTE

Defendants. ) ) ) )

For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, if there be any, in writing on or before November 24, 2021, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order.

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff sued the following defendants for civil rights violations: (1) Warden R.C. Johnson; (2) Corrections Officer Karanikolas; and (3) Board of Parole Commissioners R. Grounds, B. Roberts, D. Long (incorrectly sued as Lang) and A.

Soares. (Dkt. No. 6.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 31.) The court set a briefing schedule and granted Plaintiff three extensions of time to file an opposition on order setting a deadline of October 28, 2021 was returned as undeliverable by the postal service and filed on September 3, 2021. A notation on the envelope indicates Plaintiff was paroled. (Dkt. No. 54.) The court’s subsequent docket entry was also returned as undeliverable by the postal service and filed on September 17, 2021. (Dkt. No. 55.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by the deadline of October 28, 2021 and did not request an extension of time to do so. B. Discussion

It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s action because of his failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. 10 P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 11 2d 734 (1962) (court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court calendars).

A party proceeding pro se “must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address.” Local Rule 41-6. When a court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned as undeliverable by the postal service, and that plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days after service of the court order, “the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. The court’s August 24, 2021 order was returned as undeliverable by the postal service. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address and has not responded to Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC.

C. ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before November 24, 2021, Plaintiff shall show good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order.

If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before November 24, 2021, this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).

Ai $A Kean DATED: November 8, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE