Filed: Jul. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On July 12, 2018, Defendant informed that Court that Plaintiff no longer resides at the address he has on file in this suit. See Dkt. 37. Defendant's counsel indicated that on June 15, 2018 he attempted to serve Plaintiff with a copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, but that document was returned as undeliverable because "Plaintiff [was] reportedly no longer located at the addr
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . On July 12, 2018, Defendant informed that Court that Plaintiff no longer resides at the address he has on file in this suit. See Dkt. 37. Defendant's counsel indicated that on June 15, 2018 he attempted to serve Plaintiff with a copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, but that document was returned as undeliverable because "Plaintiff [was] reportedly no longer located at the addre..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
On July 12, 2018, Defendant informed that Court that Plaintiff no longer resides at the address he has on file in this suit. See Dkt. 37. Defendant's counsel indicated that on June 15, 2018 he attempted to serve Plaintiff with a copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment, but that document was returned as undeliverable because "Plaintiff [was] reportedly no longer located at the address he provided." Id. at 1-2. To date, Plaintiff has not informed the Court of his current address.
In an Order dated October 27, 2017, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero1 gave the following warning to Plaintiff, stating:
It is plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Dkt. 14 at 3-4. The failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal of this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff shall show cause why the instant action should not be dismissed under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with Chief Magistrate Spero's October 27, 2017 Order. No later than August 31, 2018, Plaintiff shall file a response to the instant order to show cause that sets forth why this action should not be dismissed for failing to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Failure to file an appropriate response by that date will result in the dismissal of this action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
