Case 2:18-cv-01103-RGK-AGR Document 108 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:1786

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 EVERTON WHITELY, ) No. CV 18-1103-RGK (AGR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 CDCR, et al., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE ) TO PROSECUTE 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, if 19 there be any, in writing on or before June 10, 2022, why this action should not be 20 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. 21 In this prisoner civil rights action, Defendants filed a motion for summary 22 judgment on October 14, 2021. (Dkt. No. 100.) The court vacated the hearing date, set 23 a briefing schedule requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition by November 29, 2021, and 24 notified Plaintiff of the requirements for opposing a summary judgment motion in 25 compliance with Rand v. Rowland,

(9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 26 (Dkt. No. 102.) The court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and 27 extended the time to file an opposition to January 21, 2022. (Dkt. No. 105.) 28 Case 2:18-cv-01103-RGK-AGR Document 108 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:1787

1 Plaintiff has not filed an opposition and has not requested an extension of time to 2 do so. In another action filed by the same Plaintiff, court mail has been returned as 3 undeliverable by the postal service with a notation that Plaintiff has been paroled. Dkt. 4 No. 57 filed February 28, 2022, Whitely v. CDCR, CV 20-2216 RGK (AGR). Plaintiff 5 has not filed a notice of change of address in either case. 6 It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s 7 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 10 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in 11 district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

(9th Cir. 1992) (district 12 court may dismiss action for failure to comply with order of court); Carey v. King, 856

, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (district may dismiss action for failure to prosecute 14 after mail is returned by postal service as undeliverable). 15 In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff is required to file an opposition or a 16 written statement that the party will not oppose the motion. Local Rule 7-9. 17 Plaintiff advised that: “If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address 18 of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of 19 the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of 20 said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without 21 prejudice for want of prosecution.” Local Rule 41-6. 22 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before June 10, 2022, Plaintiff shall 23 show good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be dismissed 24 without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. 25 If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or 26 otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before June 10, 2022, the 27 action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 28 and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

, 2 Case 2:18-cv-01103-RGK-AGR Document 108 Filed 05/16/22 Page 30f3 Page ID #:1788

1 629-30 (1962). Filing an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and 2| filing a notice of change of address by June 10, 2022 shall discharge this order to show 3] cause. ° Uiaw A Keenbng, DATED: May 16, 2022 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28