Martin v. California Department of Corrections

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/14/2015 DISMISSING this action. CASE CLOSED.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CURTIS L. MARTIN,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-1565-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Defendant.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28

19

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff’s consent. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

21

On April 9, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

22

The April 9 order informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his original complaint and dismissed

23

his complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. ECF No. 12. The order

24

further warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The

25

time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise

26

responded to the court’s order.1

27
28

1

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the order was returned, plaintiff
was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current
1

1

A party’s failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules “may be grounds for

2

imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the

3

inherent power of the Court.” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or

4

without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v.

5

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in

6

dismissing pro se plaintiff’s complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended

7

complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

8

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with local rule

9

regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

10

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b).

12

Dated: May 14, 2015.

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

address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of
the party is fully effective
2