(PC) Hilson v. Lynch et al

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE Why it Should Not be Recommended That This Matter be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute and Failure to Keep Court Apprised of Current Address, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 3/11/2025. Show Cause Response or in the Alternative, Notice of Current Address and Request for Extension of Time to File an Amended Complaint Due Within SEVEN DAYS. (Deputy Clerk CRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RASHEED HILSON, SR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JEFF LYNCH, et al.,

15

Defendants.

No. 1:23-cv-01757 GSA (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE
RECOMMENDED THAT THIS MATTER BE
DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND FAILURE TO KEEP
COURT APPRISED OF CURRENT
ADDRESS
PLAINTIFF’S SHOWING OF CAUSE OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, HIS NOTICE OF
CURRENT ADDRESS AND A REQUEST
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT, DUE IN SEVEN
DAYS

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff, a former state prisoner1 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 prosecute and failure to keep the Court apprised of his
25
current address. As an alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a notice of
26
27
28

1

On September 11, 2024, a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff was docketed. ECF No.
7. The notice of change of address appears to indicate that Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at
Kern Valley State Prison. See id.
1

1

change of address and a request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff

2

will have seven days to take either course of action.

3

I.

4

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Grant of In Forma Pauperis Status

5

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff’s complaint and his application to proceed in forma

6

pauperis were docketed. ECF Nos. 1, 2. On December 28, 2023, after Plaintiff’s six-month

7

prison trust fund account statement was also filed (see ECF No. 5) (prison trust fund account

8

statement), Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
B. Plaintiff’s Notice of Change of Address

9
10

On September 11, 2024, a notice of change of address filed by Plaintiff was docketed.

11

ECF No. 7. The notice indicated that Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated in state prison. Id.

12

Consistent with the notice filed by Plaintiff, the Clerk of Court updated Plaintiff’s mailing address

13

on the Court’s docket. See case caption of docket.

14

C. Screening of Complaint; Service of Screening Order
On September 30, 2024, the undersigned screened Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 8. In

15
16

so doing, it was found that because it consisted of thirty-nine handwritten pages, it failed to

17

comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and (d)(1). Id. at 2. Specifically, it did not

18

contain a “short and plain statement” of the claims, nor did it consist of “simple, concise, and

19

direct” allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), (d)(1). As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to file an

20

amended complaint. ECF No. 8 at 3-4. He was given thirty days to do so. Id. at 4. The order

21

was served on Plaintiff at his new mailing address. See 9/30/24 “service by mail” entry on

22

docket.

23

D. Screening Order Returned to Court

24

On October 17, 2024, the Court’s screening order was returned to it marked,

25

“Undeliverable, Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed, Unable to Forward.” See

26

10/17/24 docket entry. Since the return of the order, Plaintiff has neither filed a new notice of

27

change of address, nor has he requested an extension of time to file an amended complaint.

28
2

1

II

DISCUSSION
A. Plaintiff’s Returned Screening Order Was Properly Served

2
3

Although the Court’s screening order was returned to the Court, Plaintiff was properly

4

served with it. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at

5

all times. Local Rule 183(b). Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record

6

address of the party is fully effective. Accordingly, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court is

7

within its bounds to dismiss this case on the grounds that by failing to timely file an amended

8

complaint, Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this matter.

9

B. Plaintiff’s Time to File Notice of Change of Address Has Expired

10

Furthermore, from the date that the screening order deemed to have been served on

11

Plaintiff was returned to the Court marked “undeliverable,” Plaintiff had sixty-three days to file a

12

notice of change of address with the Court. See Local Rule 183(b).2 More than sixty-three days

13

have passed, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address with the Court. Since

14

Plaintiff’s notice of change of address docketed in early September 2024, Plaintiff has not

15

interacted with the Court in in any way. These facts also support the immediate dismissal of this

16

case.

17

C. Dismissal Warranted; Showing of Cause or Alternatives to Same Offered

18

Although Plaintiff’s failure to file a notice of current address with the Court and his failure

19

to prosecute this case, each independently warrant a recommendation that this matter be

20

dismissed immediately, prior to doing so, Plaintiff will first be given the opportunity to file a

21

showing of cause stating why this case should not be dismissed for these reasons. As an

22

alternative to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff will also be given the option of filing a notice

23

of current address with the Court and simultaneously filing a request for an extension of time to

24

file an amended complaint. Plaintiff will be given seven days to take either course of action.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1. Plaintiff is ordered to SHOW CAUSE why it should not be recommended that this

27
28

2

As of January 1, 2025, this period has been shortened from sixty-three days to thirty days.
3

1

matter be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute and for failure to provide notice of his current

2

address with the Court; or

3

2. As an ALTERNATIVE to filing the showing of cause, Plaintiff may file a notice of

4

current address with the Court and a request for an extension of time to file an amended

5

complaint, and

6

3. Plaintiff shall have seven days to take either course of action.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 11, 2025

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4