Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801-4/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS CEBALLOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

AARON FOUCH, )

)

Defendant. )

)

1:03-cv-05801-OWW-SMS-P

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S

FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE

ACTION 

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

 On August 16, 2005, the court issued an Order Adopting

Findings and Recommendations and Denying Motion for Summary

Judgment, and served said order on plaintiff. On September 6,

2005, the order served on plaintiff was returned by the U.S.

Postal Service as undeliverable. A notation on the envelope

indicated: Return to Sender - Attempted - Not Known.

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-183(b), a party appearing in

propria persona is required to keep the court apprised of his or

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 09/21/05 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

 

1

It is unclear at this time whether or not Plaintiff has provided this information to Defendants as ordered by the

Court but given that the Order was returned to the Court as undeliverable, it may be the case that he has not. 

2

her current address at all times. To date, plaintiff has not

notified the court of any change in address or otherwise been in

contact with the court. Absent such notice, service at a party’s

prior address is fully effective. See Local Rule 83-182(f).

The Court notes that it issued a Second Scheduling Order

setting the matter for trial on July 15, 2005. While it appears

that this order reached Plaintiff as it was not returned the

Court, it is the subsequent Order issued on August 2, 2005,

ruling on Defendants request to modify the scheduling order and

ordering Plaintiff to provide Defendants with a telephone number

where he could be reached in order to make a telephonic

appearance before the Court on October 13, 2005.1

Local Rule 11-110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a

party to comply with these Local Rules or with any order of the

Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and

all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” 

District courts have the inherent power to control their dockets

and “in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions

including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” 

Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A

court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s

failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order, or

failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran,

46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995)(dismissal for noncompliance

with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th

Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 09/21/05 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

requiring amendment of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439,

1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)(dismissal for failure to comply with

local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of

address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th

Cir. 1987)(dismissal for failure to comply with court order);

Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.

1986)(dismissal for failure to lack of prosecution and failure to

comply with local rules). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within

TWENTY (20) days of the date of service of this Order why the

action should not be dismissed for his failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 41 Filed 09/21/05 Page 3 of 3