(PC)Costa v. Sandoval

Filing 16

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why This Matter Should Not be Dismissed for Failure to Obey Court Orders, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/6/2025. Plaintiff's Showing of Cause or, in the Alternative, Plaintiff's Notice of Current Address and Filing Fee or Non-Prisoner In Forma Pauperis Application Due in Fourteen Days. (Attachments: # 1 IFP Application Non-Prisoner) (Deputy Clerk CRM)

1

21cv1308

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY STEWART COSTA,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

MARGARITA SANDOVAL,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

No. 1:2I-cv-01308 JLT GSA (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY THIS MATTER SHOULD NOT
BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
COURT ORDERS
(See ECF Nos. 14, 15)
PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF CURRENT ADDRESS AND
FILING FEE OR NON-PRISONER IN
FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION DUE IN
FOURTEEN DAYS

19
20

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this

21

civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

22

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

23

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff will be ordered to show cause why this matter

24

should not be dismissed for failure to obey court orders. As an alternative to filing the showing of

25

cause, Plaintiff may: (1) file a notice of current address with the Court, and (2) either pay the

26

filing fee in full, or complete and file a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application with the Court.

27

Plaintiff will be given fourteen days to comply with this order.

28
1

1

I.

2

On August 30, 2021, Plaintiff’s complaint and his application to proceed in forma

3

pauperis along with his six-month prison trust fund account statement were docketed. ECF Nos.

4

1, 2. Shortly thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application. ECF No. 4.

5

RELEVANT FACTS

On April 13, 2022, a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff was docketed. ECF No.

6

13. The address in the notice appeared to indicate that Plaintiff had been released from prison.

7

See id.

8

On July 25, 2024, because quite some time had passed from the date that Plaintiff filed his

9

notice of change of address, prior to screening the complaint, Plaintiff was ordered to file a notice

10

of current address with the Court. ECF No. 14. Plaintiff was given seven days to do so. Id.

11

Plaintiff has not as yet responded to the Court’s order, nor has he filed an extension of time to do

12

so. The Court also notes that the order was never returned to the Court marked “undeliverable.”

13

Despite these facts, on January 22, 2025, given Plaintiff’s non-prisoner status, the Court

14

ordered Plaintiff to file a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application. He was given thirty days to

15

do so. To date, Plaintiff has also failed to respond to this order of the Court, nor has he requested

16

an extension of time to do so. In addition, like the July 2024 order which had directed Plaintiff to

17

file a notice of current address, it was never returned to the Court marked “undeliverable.”

18

II.

DISCUSSION

19

Both the Court and the public have an interest in the disposal of cases in an expedient

20

manner. See generally Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393, 399 (9th Cir. 1998)

21

(presuming public has interest in expeditious litigation). The order directing Plaintiff to file a

22

notice of current address was issued in order to ensure that a correct address was on file for

23

Plaintiff prior to screening his case. Having this information on file generally enables the Court

24

to be more efficient. It also allows the Court to prioritize the review of older matters on its

25

docket.

26

Plaintiff’s failure: (1) to timely file a notice of current address when ordered to do so, and

27

(2) either to pay the filing fee in full or to submit a non-prisoner in forma pauperis application, as

28
2

1

required by law1 has stalled this process. For these reasons, Plaintiff will be ordered to show

2

cause why this matter should not be dismissed for his failure to do so. In the alternative, Plaintiff

3

may file a notice of an updated address with the Court and either pay the filing fee in full or

4

complete and file a non-prisoner application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff will be given

5

fourteen days to comply with this order.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s in forma pauperis

8

application for a non-prisoner;

9

2. Within fourteen days from the date of this order, shall SHOW CAUSE why this matter

10

should not be dismissed for failure to obey court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule

11

110, and

12

3. As an ALTERNATIVE to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may: (1) file a notice

13

of current address with the Court, and (2) either pay the filing fee in full or complete and file a

14

non-prisoner in forma pauperis application with the Court.

15
16

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order within the time allotted
may result in a recommendation that this matter be dismissed.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

20

March 6, 2025

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

“[A] released prisoner may proceed in forma pauperis upon satisfying the poverty provisions
applicable to non-prisoners.” DeBlasio v. Gilmore, 315 F.3d 396, 398-99 (4th Cir. 2003)
(brackets added) (collecting cases); McGann v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 96 F.3d 29, 30 (2d
Cir. 1996); see In re Prison Litigation Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1139 (6th Cir. 1997) (stating
upon release, obligation to pay remainder of fees to be determined solely on question of whether
individual qualifies for pauper status). “After release, the obligation to pay the remainder of the
fees is to be determined solely on the question of whether the released individual qualifies for
pauper status.” In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1139 (6th Cir. 1997).
1

28
3