Merelo v. Ruiz et al

Filing 6

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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NARISSA MELERO,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
GABRIEL RUIZ, JOSE VARGAS, and
COUNTY OF FRESNO CHILD
PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

16

Defendants.

17
18

This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff, who is

19

proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on

20

December 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff

21

in forma pauperis status, but struck the Complaint because it was not signed and violated Fed. R.

22

Civ. P. 11 and Local Rule 131(b). (Doc. No. 4). The Court directed Plaintiff to refile a signed

23

complaint in compliance with the applicable rules within thirty (30) days. (Id.). Plaintiff has not

24

submitted a signed complaint, as directed by this Court’s December 9, 2022 Order and the time to

25

do so has expired.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action

27

when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court order.

28

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
1

2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th

2

Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may

3

dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110

4

similarly permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court’s

5

Rules or any order of court. Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant fails to keep

6

the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower

7

court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after

8

pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of

9

addresses at all times); Hanley v. Opinski, Case No. 1:16-cv-391-DAD-SAB, 2018 WL 3388510

10

(E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and failure to provide court with

11

current address).

12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

13

Within fourteen (14) days from the date on this Order, Plaintiff shall file a signed

14

complaint or show good cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 and Local

15

Rules 110 and 183. Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to this Order shall result in the

16

undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this case without further notice.

17
18
19

Dated:

January 17, 2023
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2