Antonio Cadelario Michel v. San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department

Filing 30

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS by Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause, in writing, on or before January 26, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders. See Order for details. (dml)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: Title: EDCV 16-00781 GW (RAO) Date: January 11, 2017 Antonio Candelario Michel v. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, et al. Present: The Honorable ROZELLA A. OLIVER, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Gay Roberson Deputy Clerk N/A Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): N/A N/A Proceedings: (In Chambers) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO UPDATE HIS ADDRESS The Court previously issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to the apparent failure to prosecute and obey court orders on the part of Plaintiff Antonio Candelario Michel (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 20.) However, following receipt of a letter from Plaintiff, indicating his desire to continue pursuing the present action, and a letter from a facility at which Plaintiff currently is staying (Dkt. Nos. 21, 22), the Court withdrew its Report and Recommendation on November 21, 2016 (Dkt. No. 23). In its order withdrawing the Report and Recommendation, the Court ordered Plaintiff to notify the Court, in writing, of his current address on or before December 12, 2016. (Dkt. No. 23 at 1.) The Court also modified previously set case deadlines, now requiring Plaintiff, on or before December 21, 2016, to file with the Court a Notice of Submission indicating that he has provided to the United States Marshals Service the necessary documents to complete service. (Id. at 2.) To date, the Court has not received any filing from Plaintiff in response to the November 21 order. The Court’s November 21 order expressly reminded Plaintiff of his obligation, pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, to keep the Court apprised of his current address and warned him that his failure to do so would permit the Court to dismiss the case for want of prosecution. (Dkt. No. 23 at 1.) Plaintiff received the same warning in the Court’s September 13, 2016, Order re Civil Rights Case. (Dkt. No. 9 at 3.) Similarly, the Court’s September 13, 2016, Order Directing Service of Process by the United States Marshal warned Plaintiff that his failure to timely file a CV-90 (05/15) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: Title: EDCV 16-00781 GW (RAO) Date: January 11, 2017 Antonio Candelario Michel v. San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, et al. Notice of Submission would subject this action to dismissal without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.) In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff must show cause, in writing, on or before January 26, 2017, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with Court orders. Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to this Order will result in a recommendation that this case be dismissed. As it did with its previous order, to ensure that Plaintiff receives this order, the Court directs the Clerk to mail a copy of this order to the following address, which Plaintiff previously provided in anticipation of his release from prison (Dkt. No. 6): Antonio Candelario Michel 17000 Montecito Drive Victorville, CA 92395 The Court also directs the Clerk to send a copy of this order to the facility at which it appears Plaintiff is currently located: Antonio Candelario Michel C/O St. John of God Health Care Services P.O. Box 2457 Victorville, CA 92393 IT IS SO ORDERED. Initials of Preparer CV-90 (05/15) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL : gr Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?