Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02089/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02089-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD B. SPROUT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-02089 DLB PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 

FOR FAILURE TO KEEP COURT APPRISED 

OF CURRENT ADDRESS

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Richard B. Sprout (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the Stanislaus County Jail proceeding 

pro se and in forma pauperis in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

December 31, 2014.1 

On October 16, 2015, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and ordered 

him to return service documents within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order.

On November 6, 2015, Plaintiff’s mail was returned to this Court by the United States Postal 

Service with a notation, “Undeliverable, RTS: Not deliverable as addressed-Not in custody.”

Plaintiff has not provided the Court with a current address as required by Local Rule 183(b), 

or otherwise contacted the Court. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERD TO SHOW CAUSE, if any he has, why this action should 

not be dismissed for failure to keep the Court apprised of his current address. Plaintiff shall file a

 

1

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge on January 16, 2015.

Case 1:14-cv-02089-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

response to this order within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order. Plaintiff may 

also comply with this order by notifying the Court of his current address.

Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02089-DLB Document 9 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2