Torres v. Gipson et al

Filing 11

ORDER re 10 Request for Update and Case Inquiry and Request for Extension of Time; Order Discharging Order to Show Cause 9 , signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/1/17. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JUAN MATIAS TORRES,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8

1:16-cv-1525-LJO-MJS

CONNIE GIPSON, et al.,
Defendants.

9

ORDER RE MOTION FOR REQUEST
FOR UPDATE AND CASE INQUIRY AND
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;
DISCHARGING OSC
(ECF Nos. 9 & 10)

10
11

Plaintiff Juan Matias Torres, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

12 civil rights action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is currently
13 before the Court for screening.
14

A pro se plaintiff must keep the Court informed of his correct current address. Local Rule

15 182(f). If a party moves to a different address without filing and serving a notice of change of address,
16 documents served at a party’s old address of record shall be deemed received even if not actually
17 received. Id. Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised of his
18 current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S.
19 Postal service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63)
20 days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to
21 prosecute.”
22

On April 19, 2017, in the interest of ensuring Plaintiff’s compliance with Local Rule 182(f) and

23 183(b), the Court issued an OSC to Plaintiff, ordering him to notify the Court of his current address
24 within thirty days. ECF No. 9.
25

On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Request for Update and Case Inquiry and
1

1

Motion for Extension of Time to Reply to Any Orders or Motions Filed. ECF No. 10. Therein, Plaintiff

2

asserts that on March 13, 2017, he was transferred to Duel Vocational Institution in Tracy, California,;

3

on March 22, 2017, was transferred to CSP-Corcoran in Corcoran, California for a case settlement

4

conference held on March 24, 2017; and on April 12, 2017, was transferred to North Kern State Prison

5

in Delano, California. Id. In his motion, Plaintiff also requests an update on the progress of his case

6

and a thirty-day extension to file any response to a Court order. Id.

7

In response, the Court advises Plaintiff that his Complaint will be screened in due course.

8

Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is

9

unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters. The Court further

10 advises Plaintiff of his responsibility to comply with Local Rules 182(f) and 183(b) throughout the
11 course of these proceedings.
12

Furthermore, this motion, Plaintiff’s most recent filing, indicates that Plaintiff is now being

13 housed at CSP-Solano, in Vacaville. Id. The Court therefore DISCHARGES the OSC, ECF No. 9, and
14 DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time, as no additional response is required
15 of Plaintiff at this time.
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18

Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

May 1, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2