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)

Download PDF
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

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?