Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01323/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01323-1/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

RICARDO WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KING, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1323 AWI LJO P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

 Ricardo White (“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 October 20, 2005. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis and served the Order along with the First Informational Order on

Plaintiff. However, the pleadings were returned to the Court by the U.S. Postal Service on

December 28, 2005, marked “Undeliverable - Attempted, Not Known.” 

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

Case 1:05-cv-01323-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/12/06 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

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, several months have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned and he

has still 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: January 11, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01323-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 2