Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00015/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00015-0/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

FLORO CAUTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

USA,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06 0015 REC SMS P 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE 

Floro Cauton (“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 January 6, 2006. The Court issued New Case

Documents the same day which were served on Plaintiff and returned to the Court marked “not at

this address.” 

Case 1:06-cv-00015-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/08/06 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

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, 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: February 7, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00015-REC -SMS Document 4 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2