Rodney Adams v. Riverside County Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility

Filing 13

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani.Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by January 30, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, follow Court orders, and comply with the Local Rules. P laintiff can satisfy this Order by updating the Court with his current address and either: (1) filing a TAC; (2) indicating in writing that he wishes to stand on the claims raised in his SAC; or (3) voluntarily dismissing this action by the date listed above. (dc)

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

5:22-cv-01636-SPG-SHK

Date: January 18, 2023

Title: Rodney Adams v. Riverside County Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility, et al.

Present: The Honorable Shashi H. Kewalramani, United States Magistrate Judge
D. Castellanos

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On December 15, 2022, the Court issued its Order Dismissing Second Amended
Complaint (“SAC”) with Leave to Amend (“ODLA”) and provided Plaintiff with a blank Civil
Rights Form and a Voluntarily Dismissal form with the ODLA. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF
No.”) 11, ODLA. Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was due by January 5, 2023.
See id. at 12 (ordering Plaintiff to file a TAC within twenty-one days of the ODLA issuing).
To date, Plaintiff has not filed a TAC or otherwise participated in this litigation. The
Court notes, however, that the ODLA―which was sent to Plaintiff’s address of record at the
Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility (“LDSCF”) in Banning, California―was returned to the
Court by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) with a notation that the ODLA was “Not
Deliverable As Addressed; Unable to Forward.” ECF No. 12, Returned Mail. Further, the
Court’s review of the Riverside County Sheriff’s inmate locator website indicates that Plaintiff
was released on November 16, 2022.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (“Local Rule”) 41-6 requires pro se parties to keep the Court and opposing parties
apprised of their current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If
mail directed by the Clerk of Court to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned
undelivered by the USPS, and if, within fourteen days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to
notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of plaintiff’s current address, the Court may
dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk DC

Here, it appears that Plaintiff has been released from LDSCF and has failed to inform the
Court of his updated address in violation of Local Rule 41-6, and that Plaintiff may have
abandoned this litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by January
30, 2023, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, follow Court orders, and
comply with the Local Rules. Plaintiff can satisfy this Order by updating the Court with his
current address and either: (1) filing a TAC; (2) indicating in writing that he wishes to stand on
the claims raised in his SAC; or (3) voluntarily dismissing this action by the date listed above.
Plaintiff is warned that failure to timely perform any of the above options will result
in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and follow Court
orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk DC