Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02880/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02880-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAEK SAMUEL YOON,

ICE #A-042-589-267,

Civil No. 12cv2880 DMS (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

STAY AND DISMISSING ACTION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

(ECF No. 11)

vs.

LOPEZ; C. HOUCK; J. WILLIAMS;

J.W. STATON; TOBE PROPST;

GILLESPIE,

Defendants.

Taek Yoon (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner, filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2). On January 7, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim and as frivolous. 

(ECF No. 3 at 6). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on March 13, 2013. 

(ECF No. 10). At the time Plaintiff filed his FAC, he was housed at the El Centro Service

Processing Center. (Id.)

On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a document to the Court entitled “Notice of

Future Change of Address and Stay of Proceeding.” (ECF No. 11). In this document, Plaintiff

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv2880-Dismiss Action.wpd 1 12cv2880 DMS (WVG)

Case 3:12-cv-02880-DMS-WVG Document 14 Filed 05/13/13 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

requests that the Court stop sending any mail to the address on the Court’s docket and stay this

action until he can provide the Court with a new address in South Korea. (Id.) 

A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias v.

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d

801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Court takes judicial notice that they Court has received

notification that Plaintiff had been removed to South Korea in March of 2013. See Yoon v.

William, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv0968 DMS (JMA). More than thirty days has passed and

Plaintiff has failed to apprise the Court of his current location. Local Rule 83.11 requires that

any “party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current

address.” S.D. CIVLR 83.11. Moreover, if “such Plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing

parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff’s current address, the court may dismiss the

action without preudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. Here, more than sixty (60) days have

passed and Plaintiff has failed to update the Court with his current address. Accordingly, the

Court DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute.

The Clerk of Court shall close the file.

DATED: May 13, 2013

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

C:\Users\moanam\AppData\Local\Temp\notesBF8557\12cv2880-Dismiss Action.wpd 2 12cv2880 DMS (WVG)

Case 3:12-cv-02880-DMS-WVG Document 14 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 2