Meyers v. Biter et al

Filing 24

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/7/16. Show Cause Response Due Within thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EVERETT LEE MEYERS,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
C.K. CHEN,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01954-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE
TO PROSECUTE

Plaintiff Everett Lee Meyers is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff claim against Defendant Dr. Chen for deliberate

20

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States

21

Constitution.

22

On December 5, 2015, the Court issued an order reassigning this action from District Judge

23

Anthony W. Ishii to District Judge Dale A. Drozd, which was returned as undeliverable on February

24

29, 2016. (ECF No. 19.) On February 1, 2016, the Court issued the discovery and scheduling order,

25

which was also returned as undeliverable March 16, 2016. (ECF No. 23.)

26

Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and Local

27

Rule 183(b) provides, “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the

28

U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty1

1

three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for

2

failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action

3

for failure to prosecute.1

4

Plaintiff’s address change was due by May 18, 2016, but he failed to file one and he has not

5

otherwise been in contact with the Court. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall

6

show cause within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order why the action should not be

7

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).

8

Failure to respond to this order will result in the action being dismissed, without prejudice.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

June 7, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.
Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation
omitted).
2