1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENT G. LEHMAN, NO. SACV 24-2520-JLS (AGR) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

15 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OC HEALTH CARE 16 AGENCY; AND ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 17

18 Defendants.

19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint 22 under

, the California Bane Act, and the “United Nations’ 23 Convention 1753 Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 24 Treatment or Punishment.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 7.)1 The Complaint names as 25 defendants the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (“OCSD”), the OC Health 26 Care Agency (“OCHCA”), and the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”).

27 1 The Complaint is not paginated consecutively. Page citations are to the page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF in the header of the document. 28 1 The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to

(e)(2) to 2 determine whether it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 3 By Order dated July 11, 2025, the Court issued an Order that: 4 1. The claims based on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth 5 Amendments are dismissed with leave to amend. 2. The claims based on equal protection and failure to train/hire under the 6 Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed with leave to amend. 7 3. The claims based on the United Nations Convention Against Torture 8 are dismissed without leave to amend. 9 4. The claims based on California’s Bane Act are dismissed with leave to 10 amend. 11 (Dkt. No. 29.) The Order notified Plaintiff that, if he chose to file a First Amended 12 Complaint, it must bear the docket number assigned to this case, be labeled “First 13 Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself without reference to the 14 prior complaints, attachments, pleadings or other documents. The Order further 15 notified Plaintiff that, if he did not file a First Amended Complaint, the Court would 16 issue an Order for Service of the Complaint upon the OCSC, OCHCA, and the 17 Board for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment based only on inadequate 18 medical care claims and conditions of confinement claims as described above. 19 The Order further notified Plaintiff about the Federal Pro Se Clinic, which provides 20 information to parties who represent themselves in federal court. (Id.) 21 The Order dated July 11, 2025 was returned as undeliverable by the postal 22 service. (Dkt. No. 30.) 23 II. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 24 Local Rule 41-6 requires that a party proceeding pro se must keep the 25 Court apprised of the party’s current address. “[T]he Court may dismiss the 26 action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution” if the party fails to notify 27 28 1 | the Court in writing of a current address within 15 days after mail is returned as 2 || undeliverable by the postal service. Local Rule 41-6. 3 The Court’s mail to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable by the postal 4 | service on July 23, 2025. (Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change 5 | of address or otherwise contacted the Court to advise of a current address. 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing, on or 7 before September 16, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Filing a notice of change of address by 9 September 16, 2025 shall be deemed sufficient to discharge this order to show

10 cause. Plaintiff is hereby notified that, if he does not file a notice of change of i address by September 16, 2025, or otherwise respond to this Order to Show 12 Cause by September 16, 2025, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice 13 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. 14 | Wabash R.R.,

(1962). 15 16 Wbias A earnberg, 17 | DATED: September 2, 2025 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG 18 United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28