Craig Arnold Thomas v. Jay Skrenek et al

Filing 15

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 41-6 by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fifteen (15) days of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Local Rule 41-6. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing a Notice of Change of Address or a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, either (1) explaining why Plaintiff did not claim the Court's June 2, 2014 Order, or (2) affirming that Plaintiff was not responsible for failing to claim the Court's Order and that Plaintiff will claim the Court's mail going forward. (See Order for Further Details) (kl)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-09494 AG (SS)

Title:

Craig Arnold Thomas v. Jay Skrenek, et al.

DOCKET ENTRY:

Date: July 17, 2014
Page 1 of 3

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 41-6

PRESENT:
HONORABLE SUZANNE H. SEGAL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
_Marlene Ramirez_

_______None_______

__None__

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter/Recorder

Tape No.

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On January 27, 2014, Craig Arnold Thomas (“Plaintiff”), a California prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the
“Complaint”). (Dkt. No. 3). The Court dismissed the Complaint due to various pleading
defects on April 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 9). Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on
May 23, 2014 (“FAC”). (Dkt. No. 10). At the same time, in apparent reference to two
Doe Defendants from the original Complaint, Plaintiff filed a “Request to Identify
Defendant Officer Hudson as John Doe #1 and Librarian Carole as John Doe #2” (the
“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 12). On June 2, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion as moot
because the FAC, in which Defendants were identified by name, superseded the original
Complaint. (Dkt. No. 13).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-09494 AG (SS)

Title:

Date: July 17, 2014
Page 2 of 3

Craig Arnold Thomas v. Jay Skrenek, et al.

The Court’s June 2, 2014 Order was sent to Plaintiff at his address of record. (Id.).
However, on July 7, 2014, the Order was returned to the Court as “unclaimed unable to
forward.” (Dkt. No. 14).
The Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff presents a serious obstacle to
the prosecution of this case. Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, a party
proceeding pro se must “keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party’s
current address . . . .” C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6. The rule further provides:
If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is
returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of
the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and
opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss
the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within fifteen (15) days
of the date of this Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute
and to comply with Local Rule 41-6. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing a Notice
of Change of Address or a declaration, signed under penalty of perjury, either
(1) explaining why Plaintiff did not claim the Court’s June 2, 2014 Order, or (2) affirming
that Plaintiff was not responsible for failing to claim the Court’s Order and that Plaintiff
will claim the Court’s mail going forward.
If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue this action, he may request a voluntary
dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice
of Dismissal form is attached for Petitioner’s convenience. Plaintiff is again warned
that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation
that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-09494 AG (SS)

Title:

Date: July 17, 2014
Page 3 of 3

Craig Arnold Thomas v. Jay Skrenek, et al.

This Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his
address of record.
MINUTES FORM
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk mr