Taylor v. Smith et al

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute and to Obey a Court Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 02/22/2016. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
JEFFREY LAMONT TAYLOR,

11

Case No. 1:15-cv-01430-SAB-PC

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
AND TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

S. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Taylor is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17

18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to
1
19 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

On January 19, 2016, an order to show cause was entered, directing Plaintiff to show

20

21 cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute and to obey a court
22 order. This action was initiated by a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in the Sacramento
23 division of this district. This action was transferred to this division and on September 14, 2015,
24 an order was entered, directing the Clerk of Court to categorize this as a civil rights action and
25 sending to Plaintiff new case documents for a prisoner civil rights case. On October 26, 2015,
26 the documents were returned to the Court as undeliverable, indicating that Plaintiff had refused
27 to accept the documents.
28

1

Plaintiff filed a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on August 24, 2015. (ECF No. 3.)

1

Accordingly, on January 19, 2015, an order to show cause was entered, advising Plaintiff

1

2 that a failure to keep the Court informed of his address of record is an independent ground for
3 dismissal, and that a failure to obey the Local Rules is ground for dismissal. Plaintiff was
4 specifically order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for his failure to
5 prosecute and to obey a court order. On February 8, 2016, the order to show cause was returned
6 to the Court as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any change in his address.
7 Absent such notice, service at a party’s prior address is fully effective. Local Rule 182(f).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for Plaintiff’s

8

9 failure to obey and failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated:

February 22, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2