Case 5:21-cv-00724-JGB-AGR Document 14 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:125

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 LUIS MANUEL RODRIGUEZ DEL ) No. EDCV 21-724-JGB (AGR) GALDILLO, ) 12 ) Petitioner, ) 13 ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS v. ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE DHS, ) TO PROSECUTE 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause, if 19 there be any, in writing on or before June 3, 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 habeas action, the District Court issued an order granting in part the 22 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and requiring Respondent to provide Petitioner a 23 bond hearing with the requisite procedural protections within 30 days after entry of the 24 order or release him. (Order, Dkt. No. 6.) Respondent subsequently filed status 25 reports. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 11.) Following continuances sought by Petitioner, an immigration 26 judge held a bond hearing and declined to order release on bond. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 11-1.) 27 28 Case 5:21-cv-00724-JGB-AGR Document 14 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:126

1 On April 26, 2022, the District Court issued an Order re Transfer under which re- 2 assignment of the case to a different judicial officer was declined as not related. (Dkt. 3 No. 12.) 4 The Court’s mail has been returned as undeliverable by the postal service with a 5 notation that Petitioner is not in custody. (Dkt. No. 13, filed 5/12/22.) Petitioner has not 6 filed a notice of change of address. 7 It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss an action 8 because of his failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co.,

(1962) (court’s authority to 10 dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to prevent undue delays in the disposition 11 of pending cases and avoid congestion in district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 12

(9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to 13 comply with order of court); Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) 14 (district may dismiss action for failure to prosecute after mail is returned by postal 15 service as undeliverable). 16 Plaintiff advised that: “If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address 17 of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of 18 the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of 19 said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without 20 prejudice for want of prosecution.” Local Rule 41-6. 21 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before June 3, 2022, Plaintiff shall show 22 good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be dismissed without 23 prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. 24 If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or 25 otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before June 3, 2022, the 26 action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 27 and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

, 28 2 Case 5:21-cv-00724-JGB-AGR Document Filed 05/16/22 Page 3of3 Page #:127

1 629-30 (1962). Filing a notice of change of address by June 3, 2022 shall discharge 2|| this order to show cause. 4 Uiaw A Keenbng, 5|| DATED: May 16, 2022 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28