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)

Download PDF
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

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?