Opinion
2:23-CV-08959-GW (DTB)
04-19-2024
DAVID GAMBOA, Petitioner, v. OFFICER BANUELOS, et al., Respondent.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING FAILURE TO UPDATE ADDRESS
DAVID T. BRISTOW, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On September 25, 2023, David Gamboa (“Plaintiff”), a county jail inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis in the Eastern District of California. (Docket Nos. 1, 2.) On October 19, 2023, the matter was transferred to the Central District of California. (Docket No. 5.) On November 7, 2023, plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket No. 8.) On November 22, 2023, the matter was transferred to this Court's calendar. (Docket No. 11.)
Named in the Complaint are the following defendants: Officer Banuelos (“Banuelos”), Officer Munoz (“Munoz”), Officer Park (“Park”), Parole Officer Harris (“Harris”), Leslie Del Rio (“Rio”), Jerry A. Ammonds (“Ammonds”), Rebecca Reynoso (“Reynoso”), Zarifa Ismaila Gamboa (“Gamboa”), Sofia Barez (“Barez”), Chanel Rainey (“Rainey”), Mercedez Mendoza (“Mendoza”), Leah Harding (“Harding”), Eric Santos (“Santos”) and Katherynn D. Deleon (“Deleon”).
On December 27, 2023, separate orders regarding further proceedings were issued regarding Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court ordered service of the Complaint on defendants Banuelos, Munoz, Park, Harris, Rio, Ammonds, Reynoso, Deleon, Barez, Rainey, Mendoza, Harding and Santos in their individual capacities and advised Plaintiff that they were unable to order service on defendant Gamboa without additional identifying information.
On February 1, 2024, defendants Deleon, Harding and Santos filed Answer. (Dkt. # 30.)
On February 2, 2024, defendants Rio, Mendoza and Rainey filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 31.) On February 5, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order setting a briefing schedule on the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Rio, Mendoza and Rainey. (Dkt # 35.)
On February 6, 2024, defendants Munoz and Park filed an Answer. (Dkt. # 33.)
On March 19, 2024, defendants Ammonds and Reynoso filed a Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. # 40.) On March 20, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order setting a briefing schedule on the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Ammonds and Reynoso. (Dkt. # 41.)
On March 28, 2024, defendants Munoz and Park filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). (Dkt. # 42.) On April 1, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order setting a briefing schedule on the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Munoz and Park. (Dkt # 43.) On April 10, 2024, defendants Munoz and Park filed a Request to Update the Record. (Dkt. # 44.)
On April 15, 2024, the Court received its Minute Order filed April 1, 2024 (Dkt. # 43) returned from the institution marked as “Return to Sender Not in Custody.” (Dkt. # 45.)
Pro se litigants are required to keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of their current address. Central District of California Local Rule 41-6. Therefore, plaintiff is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and failing to comply with the Court's Local Rules. Plaintiff may alternatively file a Notice of Change of Address to discharge this Order to Show Cause. Plaintiff's response is due no later than May 17, 2024.
Plaintiff is hereby cautioned that failing to comply with this Order may result in the recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Court's Local Rules.