Diaz v. County of Fresno

Filing 55

ORDER directing Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to obey Court Rules signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/4/2017. Show Cause Response due within 14-Days.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JESUS DIAZ,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO,
Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01001-BAM
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND FAILURE TO OBEY COURT RULES
FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

18

Plaintiff Jesus Diaz (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action

19

under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. Plaintiff, through counsel, initiated this

20

action on June 28, 2013. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate

21

Judge. (Docs. 12, 13.)

22

On October 31, 2016, the Court granted leave of Plaintiff’s counsel to withdraw as attorneys of

23

record in this matter, and substituted Plaintiff as counsel in propria persona. The Court granted

24

withdrawal based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide counsel with his current address and phone number,

25

and on the inability of counsel to contact Plaintiff for several years. (Doc. 54.) The Court’s order was

26

served on Plaintiff at his last known address. On January 23, 2017, that order was returned by the

27

United States Post Office as Undeliverable, RTS, Unknown, Illegible, Unable to Forward. To date,

28

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with his current address or contact information.
1

1

Pursuant to Local Rules 182 and 183, a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the

2

Clerk, the Court and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number. Local Rule

3

182(f), 183(b). Additionally, Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to comply with

4

these [Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

5

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the failure of Plaintiff to

6

prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability

7

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1227 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 41(b) permits dismissal for failure of the

8

plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order of court”).

9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that, within fourteen (14) days from the date of

10

service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for

11

failure to prosecute and failure to obey a court order. Plaintiff may comply with this order by notifying

12

the Court in writing of his current address and telephone number. Plaintiff’s failure to respond to

13

this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 4, 2017

A. McAuliffe

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2