Benny Ray Carter v. State of California et al

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute or Failure to Comply with the Local Rules, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/22/17. Show Cause Response Due Within Thirty Days. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENNY RAY CARTER, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-00313-DAD-GSA v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS – WASCO, 16 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE OR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL RULES Defendants. 17 Plaintiff Benny Ray Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 18 19 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 22, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 21 22 recommendations, recommending in relevant part that the court dismiss this action. (See Doc. 23 No. 18.) The findings and recommendations were served by mail on plaintiff that same day. The 24 United States Postal Service returned the findings and recommendations to the court on March 8, 25 2017, as undeliverable, with a notation indicating that plaintiff’s address of record is “Inactive.” 26 To date, plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his address.1 27 28 1 Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f). 1 1 Local Rule 183(b) requires that a party appearing in propria persona, as plaintiff Carter 2 does here, must keep the court advised as to his current address. If mail directed to such party by 3 the Clerk is returned, and if such party fails to notify the court and opposing parties within sixty- 4 three days thereafter of a current address, the court may dismiss the action for failure to 5 prosecute. Moreover, Local Rule 110 provides that a party’s failure to comply with the Local 6 Rules generally may be grounds for imposition of any sanctions authorized by statute, Rule, or 7 within the inherent power of the court. Accordingly, a court may dismiss an action based on a 8 party’s failure to prosecute or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 9 F.3d 52, 53–54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 10 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring 11 amendment of complaint). 12 In light of plaintiff’s failure to update the court with his current address or to otherwise 13 respond to the pending findings and recommendations, this court hereby orders plaintiff Carter to 14 show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or failure to comply 15 with local rules. Specifically, plaintiff Carter is directed to file a written response within 16 twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order indicating his intent to proceed with this action 17 and advising this court of his current address. If plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the court 18 will dismiss this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: June 22, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?