Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01439/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01439-2/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

SCHA BUCK LARSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

S. SMITH,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01439-BAM-PC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR 

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE 

TO OBEY A COURT ORDER

(ECF NO. 12)

RESPONSE DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 11.) 

On March 11, 2016, an order was entered, screening the complaint and requiring Plaintiff 

to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court of his intention to proceed only on the 

claims found to be cognizable. (ECF No. 12.) On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of 

Change of Address, indicating that he was in custody at the San Diego County Central Jail. 

(ECF No. 13.) On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a response to the screening order. Plaintiff 

indicated that he had been taken into local custody, but would be released soon. The April 14, 

2016, response indicated an address of George F. Bailey Detention Center in San Diego County. 

On April 19, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time in which to comply 

with the March 11, 2016, screening order. The thirty day period passed, and Plaintiff failed to 

file a response to the March 11, 2016, screening order. 

A review of the docket indicated that the April 19, 2016, order was served on Plaintiff at 

Case 1:15-cv-01439-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/01/16 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

an address other than that noted on his March 31, 2016, Notice of Change of Address, and the 

address noted in his April 14, 2016, response. Because the order granting Plaintiff an extension 

of time was not served on Plaintiff at his most recently indicated address, the Court granted 

Plaintiff a thirty day extension of time. The June 1, 2016, order granting Plaintiff a further 

extension of time was served on Plaintiff at both the San Diego County Jail and the address 

noted on the March 31, 2016, Notice of Change of Address. (ECF No. 16.) The order was 

returned by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable, indicating that Plaintiff was no longer at 

either of the addresses.

 Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and 

Local Rule 183(b) provides, “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-thee (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 

action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also 

provides for dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon Preservation Council 

v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s address 

change was due August 19, 2016. Plaintiff has not filed a Notice of Change of Address, or 

otherwise been in contact with the Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall, within thirty days of the 

date of service of this order, show cause why this action should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s 

failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01439-BAM Document 17 Filed 09/01/16 Page 2 of 2