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