Opinion
Derrick L Eatman, Plaintiff, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.
OPINION
PAUL L. ABRAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS)
On March 19, 2015, this Court issued an Order Dismissing First Amended Complaint with Leave to Amend. The Order gave plaintiff until April 17, 2015, to file a Second Amended Complaint that remedied the deficiencies discussed in the Order. The Order expressly admonished plaintiff that if he failed to timely file a Second Amended Complaint or failed to remedy the deficiencies discussed in the Order, the Court would recommend that the action be dismissed. To date, plaintiff has not filed a Second Amended Complaint.
The Court also notes that on April 20, 2015, the Report and Recommendation it had sent to plaintiff on February 25, 2015, at his last known address, was returned to the Court based on an " insufficient address." Plaintiff is reminded that the Local Rules require a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court informed of his current address and telephone number, and e-mail address if any. Cal. C.D. R. 41-6. If mail directed by the clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, the plaintiff fails to notify the Court in writing of his current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution. Id.
Accordingly, no later than May 13, 2015, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Filing of plaintiff's contact information in compliance with Local Rule 41-6, and filing of the Second Amended Complaint, on or before May 13, 2015, shall be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's failure to file a Second Amended Complaint and inform the Court of his current address of record by May 13, 2015, shall result in the Court recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute and to obey court orders.