Alexander Gutierrez v. County of Riverside et al

Filing 39

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by July 17, 2017plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (kca)

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

ED CV 16-1817-DSF (SP)

Title

ALEXANDER GUTIERREZ v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 3, 2017

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly I. Carter

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed
for Failure to Prosecute

On August 24, 2016, plaintiff Alexander Gutierrez, who was then a California
prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On September 26, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which plaintiff later
opposed. The court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss. Rather, on January 10, 2017,
the court stayed the case pending completion of a settlement conference.
The settlement conference was eventually scheduled for May 1, 2017. But after
issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum to plaintiff at his address of record at
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, the court learned he had been released to a homeless
shelter from which he had since walked away. Being unable to reach plaintiff, the
settlement conference did not occur.
On June 7, 2017, the court issued a minute order lifting the stay of this case. The
minute order was mailed to plaintiff at his address of record, still Chuckawalla Valley
State Prison. That mailing was returned to the court as undeliverable on June 21, 2017,
with a note indicating plaintiff has been paroled. Thus, it is apparent plaintiff is no
longer at his address of record and has failed to keep the court apprised of his current
address.
Local Rule 41-6 states:
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
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

ED CV 16-1817-DSF (SP)

Date

Title

July 3, 2017

ALEXANDER GUTIERREZ v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, et al.

opposing parties of his current address, the Court may dismiss the action
with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.
It has been far more than 15 days since the June 7 mailing was served on plaintiff,
and there has been no communication of any kind from plaintiff, much less a notice
updating his current adderss. It therefore appears that plaintiff has failed to follow Local
Rule 41-6’s requirement to promptly notify the court of a change of address. Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with Local Rule 41-6 renders this action subject to dismissal for failure
to comply with a court rule and failure to prosecute.
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by July
17, 2017, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action
should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order.
Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show
Cause will be deemed by the court as consent to the dismissal of this action without
prejudice.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2