Gann v. Kokor et al

Filing 70

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why This Action Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/23/2022. Show Cause Response due within twenty-one (21) days. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

VERA-BROWN,

15

Case No. 1:18-cv-0084-BAM (PC)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE

Defendant.

16
Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

17
18

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second

19

amended complaint against Defendant Vera-Brown (“Defendant”) for deliberate indifference to

20

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to

21

Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 52.)
On September 29, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion to vacate

22
23

scheduling order, pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground

24

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 69.) On

25

October 17, 2022, the Court’s order was returned “Undeliverable, Out to Court.” That order was

26

mailed to Plaintiff’s current address of record, which has not been changed since September 24,

27

2021. (ECF No. 47.)

28

///
1

1

Pursuant to Local Rules 182 and 183, a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify

2

the Clerk, the Court and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number. Local

3

Rules 182(f), 183(b). Additionally, Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to

4

comply with these [Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by

5

the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the failure

6

of Plaintiff to prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

7

Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006).

8
9

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within
twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, why this action should not be

10

dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff can comply with this order to

11

show cause by filing a notice informing the Court of his current address. The failure to respond

12

to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to

13

prosecute.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 23, 2022

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2