Opinion
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Complaint was filed on September 17, 2015, while plaintiff was in custody at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on September 21, 2015. The Court issued its Order re Civil Rights Case (ECF. No. 5) advising plaintiff that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) the Complaint is being screened and plaintiff may not proceed with service of process on defendants. On September 24, 2015 and September 28, 2015, plaintiff requested to amend his complaint to add additional defendants. By orders dated September 30, 2015 (ECF No. 7) and October 2, 2015 (ECF No. 10), the Court denied plaintiff's requests to add defendants but advised him that he may file a First Amended Complaint. Thereafter, Court received several returned mailings with the notation "Return to Sender - Out of Custody."
On October 21, 2015, the Court Clerk received a telephone call from plaintiff advising that his current mailing address is 16546 Batson Place, Victorville, CA 92395. On October 23, 2015, the Court issued a Minute Order advising plaintiff that "[i]f mail sent by the Clerk to plaintiff's address of record is returned as undelivered by the Post Office, ... the Court may dismiss the complaint for want of prosecution. On the other hand, if mail sent by the Clerk to plaintiff's address of record is not returned as undeliverable, it will be presumed that plaintiff has received that mail." (ECF No. 15.) Additionally, on October 27, 2015, the Court sent plaintiff a copy of the docket along with the pertinent documents previously returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 16.) On November 6, 2015, the Court received as returned mail the October 23, 2015 order (ECF No. 15) with the envelope notation "Return to Sender - No person's here at this add!" Thus, the addresses supplied by plaintiff have proved to be invalid as shown by the October 2 and October 23 Orders being returned as undeliverable.
Local Rule 41-6 requires each pro se plaintiff to keep the Court apprised of the plaintiff's current address. Rule 41-6 also provides that if mail directed to plaintiff's address of record is returned undeliverable and if, within 15 days of the service date of such mailing, plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties of plaintiff's current address, then the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Accordingly, within 15 days from the filing date of this Order, PLAINTIFF SHALL SHOW CAUSE in writing why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute, including plaintiff's failure to provide the Court with plaintiff's current address.