Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 91

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff's Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/17/17. Show Cause Response due 14-Day Deadline(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

STEWART MANAGO,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

15

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE FOR
PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RESPONSE

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding in propria persona

19

and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

20

filed the Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now

21

proceeds with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J.

22

Acevedo, D. Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel

23

(collectively, “Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.)

24

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff’s court mail was returned to the court by the United States

25

Postal Service as undeliverable, with a notation on the envelope “VACANT.” (Court Record.)

26

Plaintiff has not notified the court of his new address. Plaintiff shall be required to show cause

27

why this case should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute this action. Local Rule

28

183(b) requires that a party appearing in propria persona shall keep the court and opposing
1

1

parties advised of his or her current address. A court may dismiss an action, with prejudice,

2

based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g.,

3

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local

4

rule); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply

5

with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Henderson v.

6

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to

7

comply with local rules).

8

II.

9
10

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Within (14) fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff is

11

required to file a written response, showing cause why this case should not be

12

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and

13

2.

14

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this
action without further notice.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 17, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2