Abreu v. Jaime et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE why this Action Should not be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Obey a Court Order, and Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 09/27/2017. Show Cause Response due by 10/23/2017.(Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:16-cv-00715-BAM (PC)
(ECF No. 25)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM,
FAILURE TO OBEY A COURT ORDER,
AND FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
G. JAIME, et al.,
TWENTY (20) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Armando Abreu (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on
May 23, 2016.
On June 21, 2017, the Court issued a screening order dismissing the third amended
complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 25.) On July 13, 2017, the Court’s order was
returned as Undeliverable, Inmate not at this Institution. The deadline to file an amended
complaint has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, provided the Court with
his current address, or otherwise communicated with the Court regarding this action.
Pursuant to Local Rules 182 and 183, a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify
the Clerk, the Court and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number. Local
Rules 182(f), 183(b). Additionally, Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to
comply with these [Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by
the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the failure
of Plaintiff to prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within
twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order, why this action should not be dismissed,
with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, failure to comply with the Court’s June 21, 2017 order,
and failure to prosecute. Plaintiff can comply with this order to show cause by filing a notice
informing the Court of his current address and filing an amended complaint. The failure to
respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action, with prejudice, for failure to
state a claim, failure to obey a court order, and failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 27, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?