Hamilton v. Patelco Credit Union

Filing 62

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

WILLIAM HAMILTON,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C 12-2496 SI

Plaintiff,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
PATELCO CREDIT UNION,
Defendant.

/

13
14

On January 3, 2012, pro se plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the

15

District of South Carolina against defendant Patelco Credit Union (“Patelco”) related to an allegedly

16

erroneous credit report. Dkt. 1. Along with the complaint, plaintiff filed an application to proceed in

17

forma pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff’s IFP application stated that he was incarcerated at Edgefield Federal

18

Prison Camp. See Dkt. 2 at 2. On February 8, 2012, Magistrate Judge Hodges granted plaintiff’s

19

application to proceed IFP. See Dkt. 15 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)). The complaint was then served

20

on defendant Patelco. Dkt. 17.

21

On February 27, 2012, Patelco filed a motion to dismiss. Dkt. 24. In response, plaintiff filed

22

a motion to transfer venue to this Court, and listed his Federal Prison Camp address in South Carolina

23

as his return address. See Dkt. 29 at 2. Patelco consented to the transfer, and the case was transferred

24

to this Court on May 16, 2012. See Dkt. 38. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge LaPorte. On

25

June 1, 2012, Patelco filed another motion to dismiss. Dkt. 45. Plaintiff did not file a consent to

26

proceed before a Magistrate Judge, and the case was reassigned to this Court. See Dkt. 52.

27

Patelco’s counsel then sent a letter to the Court, requesting approval to re-notice the motion to

28

dismiss, and stating that plaintiff had been released from prison. See Dkt. 53. Counsel also represented

1

that plaintiff had informed counsel of a new address in South Carolina, but had not received any

2

communication from him since his release. Id. Patelco then re-noticed an Amended Motion to Dismiss

3

on July 26, 2012. Dkt. 55. It was served by mail to both plaintiff’s Federal Prison Camp address as well

4

as a residential address in Aiken, South Carolina. Dkt. 56.
Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss was due by August 10, 2012. No opposition has

6

been received, nor has the Court heard from plaintiff in any other way. The last correspondence sent

7

from the Court to plaintiff’s federal prison camp address – the Clerk’s Notice setting forth the schedule

8

on the latest motion to dismiss – was returned as undeliverable. Dkt. 59. Plaintiff has provided no other

9

address to this Court. The Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff TO SHOW CAUSE in writing no later

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

5

than September 7, 2012 why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R.

11

Civ. P. 41(b). Plaintiff also must provide the Court with a current, valid address. If plaintiff does not

12

respond, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

13
14

The August 31, 2012 hearing on Patelco’s motion to dismiss is hereby VACATED. The Clerk
shall serve this Order on the Aiken, South Carolina address provided by Patelco:

15

William R. Hamilton
310 Beaver Creek Lane
Aiken, SC 29803

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: August 27, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2