Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00021/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00021-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES A. ROGERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. CAMPBELL, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE 

IMPOSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE 

TO FILE AN OPPOSITION OR 

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION

14-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Charles A. Rogers is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

The Court issued its Third Screening Order on January 26, 2024, finding Plaintiff’s third 

amended complaint plausibly alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant 

Campbell, and violations of the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause against Defendants 

Cates and Sullivan. (Doc. 22.) On January 30, 2024, the Court issued its Order Finding Service 

Appropriate. (Doc. 23.) 

On April 2, 2024, Defendant filed a motion for a three-day extension of time within which 

to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 27.) The Court granted the motion the following day. (Doc. 

28.) 

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 05/06/24 Page 1 of 3
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 April 5, 2024, Defendants Campbell, Cates, and Sullivan filed a motion to dismiss

Plaintiff’s third amended complaint for a failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29.) 

II. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court notes Defendants served their motion to dismiss to Plaintiff 

at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. (See Doc. 29 at 10.) The Court’s 

docket currently reflects Plaintiff is incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution and 

Plaintiff has not filed a change of address with the Court, and it is his obligation to do so. Local 

Rule 183(b) provides:

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and 

opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. 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-three (63) 

days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 

prejudice for failure to prosecute. 

On February 21, 2024, the United States Postal Service returned this Court’s January 26, 

2024, order marked “Undeliverable” and “Return to Sender.” (Docket Entry dated 2/21/24.) On 

April 26, 2024, the United States Postal Service returned this Court’s April 3, 2024, order marked 

“Undeliverable,” “Return to Sender,” “Insufficient Address,” and “Unable to Forward.” (Docket 

Entry dated 4/26/24.) 1

The Court’s Local Rules which correspond with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provide

that a “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court 

may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or 

Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” See Local Rule 110. Local Rule 230(l) states: 

Opposition, if any to the granting of a motion shall be served and 

filed by the responding party not more than twenty-one (21) days 

after the date of service of the motion. A responding party who has 

no opposition to the granting of the motion shall serve and file a 

1 Although the deadline to respond to Defendants’ motion has passed and Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local 

Rule 183, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to change Plaintiff’s address to reflect that he is presently

housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California. The California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation’s California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) inmate locator 

tool confirms the foregoing (<https://apps.cdcr.ca.gov/ciris/details?cdcrNumber=H34159> was last 

accessed 5/3/2024). 

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 05/06/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

statement to that effect, specifically designating the motion in 

question. Failure of the responding party to file an opposition or 

statement of no opposition may be deemed a waiver of any 

opposition to the granting of the motion and may result in the 

imposition of sanctions.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ pending 

motion to dismiss was due on or before April 26, 2024, plus time for mailing. Plaintiff has failed 

to timely file an opposition or statement of non-opposition, and the time to do so has now passed. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update Plaintiff’s address to reflect he is presently 

housed at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton, California; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL show cause in writing, within 14 days of the date of service of this 

order, why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to comply with the Local 

Rules. Alternatively, within that same time, Plaintiff may file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion filed April 5, 2024. 

Plaintiff is advised that a failure to respond to this Order will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed for a failure to obey court orders and a 

failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00021-JLT-SKO Document 30 Filed 05/06/24 Page 3 of 3