Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06269/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06269-0/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

JOE SALAS-SHARP

 (aka “Joe W. Modrell”),

Plaintiff,

v.

California Department of Corrections,

 et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6269 REC SMS P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 Joe Salas-Sharp (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

This action was filed on September 19, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern

District of California and subsequently transferred to this Court. The Court granted Plaintiff’s

Application to proceed In Forma Pauperis and also served Plaintiff with a first informational

order. All mail served on Plaintiff was returned to the Court indicating that it was unclaimed. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep

the court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b) provides, in

pertinent part:

Case 1:04-cv-06269-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/06/06 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

If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is

returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to

notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty (60) days

thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action

without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

District courts also have the inherent power to control their dockets and Ain the exercise

of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.”

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action,

with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or

failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir.

1995)(dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61

(9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of

complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)(dismissal for

failure to comply with court order). 

In the instant case, significant time has passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned and he

has not made any contact with the court with respect to his case. Accordingly, the Court

HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff SHALL SHOW CAUSE within TWENTY (20) days of the date of

service of this Order, why the action should not be dismissed for failing to

prosecute the action. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

Recommendation that the action be dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06269-OWW -SMS Document 9 Filed 04/06/06 Page 2 of 2