1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID JOHN WIDMARK, Case No. 1:22-cv-00292-HBK (PC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE1 13 v. 14 A. GOMEZ and M. MURO, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff David John Widmark, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to

. For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses this 19 action without prejudice consistent with the Court’s Local Rules for Plaintiff’s failure to 20 prosecute this action. Specifically, Plaintiff failed to keep the Court apprised of a current address 21 and this action remains stagnant. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On November 28, 2023, Defendants filed a Motion to modify the discovery and 24 scheduling order, noting that Plaintiff was paroled on May 28, 2023 and had not provided an 25 updated mailing address permitting Defendants to engage in discovery. (Doc. No. 24). On 26 November 30, 2023, the Court granted the Motion and ordered Plaintiff to “promptly file a notice 27 of change of address as required by Local Rule 182(f)” and warned that failure to do so would 1 result in dismissal. (Doc. No. 25 at 2). On December 11, 2023, the Court’s mailing containing 2 the November 30, 2023 Order was returned “Undeliverable, Paroled, RTS, Not Deliverable as 3 Addressed, Unable to Forward.” (See docket). Plaintiff’s notice of change of address was due 4 February 20, 2024. (Id.). Local Rule 183(b). Plaintiff has not filed an updated address as 5 required by Local Rule 182(f) and the time to do so has expired. See docket. 6 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 7 Plaintiff was obligated to keep this Court informed of his proper address. Specifically: 8 [a] party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail 9 directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court 10 and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice 11 for failure to prosecute. 12 Local Rule 183(b); see also Local Rule 182(f) (all parties are “under a continuing duty” to notify 13 the clerk of “any change of address[.]”). Plaintiff was notified of his obligation to keep the Court 14 informed of his address and advised that the Court would dismiss an action without prejudice if 15 Plaintiff does not update his address within sixty-three (63) days. (Doc. No. 5, VIII.B.). 16 Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant does not keep the court appraised on his 17 address. Carey v. King,

(9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding no 18 abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did 19 not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all 20 times); Henderson v. Duncan,

(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal proper for failure to 21 prosecute and comply with local rules of court); Hanley v. Opinski,

(E.D. Ca. 22 July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and to provide court with current 23 address); Davis v. Kern Valley State Prison, No. 1:22-CV-1489-JLT-EPG (PC),

2992980, at *1, fn 1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2023). More than sixty-three (63) days has passed since 25 the Court’s November 30, 2023 Order was returned as undeliverable, and Plaintiff has not filed a 26 notice of change of address. 27 //// 1 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 2 This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Local Rule 183(b) for 3 | Plaintiff's failure to prosecute this action. 4 > | Dated: _ March 7.2024 Wihaw. Th. PoareA Hack 6 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 .

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28