Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06213/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06213-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VERNON KITTLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAUL SCHULTZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6213 REC LJO P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (Doc. 1, 15.) 

Vernon Kittles (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil action. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil

rights by federal actors. Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 9, 2003. On February 2,

2004, the Court issued an Order dismissing the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff,

however, did not file an Amended Complaint and the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations on March 19, 2004. 

Case 1:03-cv-06213-REC-LJO Document 19 Filed 10/13/05 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

On March 29, 2004, Plaintiff lodged an Amended Complaint. On April 2, 2004, the

Findings and Recommendations served on Plaintiff were returned to the Court marked

“Refused.” (Doc. 13) The Court vacated its Findings and Recommendations on May 12, 2004,

and ordered the Amended Complaint be filed. 

On May 21, 2004, the Order vacating the Findings and Recommendations were returned

to the Court marked “Return to Sender - Not at this Address.” (Doc. 16.) The Court issued an

Order denying a previously filed Motion for a TRO. This Order was also served on Plaintiff and

was returned to the Court on October 20, 2004, marked “Return to Sender - Not at this address.” 

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:

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. 

In the instant case, almost one year has passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned and he has not

notified the court of a current address. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff to 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 by

keeping the Court apprised of his current address. 

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: October 13, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06213-REC-LJO Document 19 Filed 10/13/05 Page 2 of 2