Merelo v. Ruiz et al
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 1/17/2023 (Fourteen Day Deadline). (Apodaca, P)
Case 1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK Document 6 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
GABRIEL RUIZ, JOSE VARGAS, and
COUNTY OF FRESNO CHILD
This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff, who is
proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on
December 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff
in forma pauperis status, but struck the Complaint because it was not signed and violated Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11 and Local Rule 131(b). (Doc. No. 4). The Court directed Plaintiff to refile a signed
complaint in compliance with the applicable rules within thirty (30) days. (Id.). Plaintiff has not
submitted a signed complaint, as directed by this Court’s December 9, 2022 Order and the time to
do so has expired.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action
when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir.
Case 1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK Document 6 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th
Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may
dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110
similarly permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court’s
Rules or any order of court. Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant fails to keep
the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower
court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after
pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of
addresses at all times); Hanley v. Opinski, Case No. 1:16-cv-391-DAD-SAB, 2018 WL 3388510
(E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and failure to provide court with
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Within fourteen (14) days from the date on this Order, Plaintiff shall file a signed
complaint or show good cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 and Local
Rules 110 and 183. Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to this Order shall result in the
undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this case without further notice.
January 17, 2023
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
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?