Martin v. California Department of Corrections

Full title: CURTIS L. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 14, 2015

2:14-cv-1565-EFB P (E.D. Cal. May. 14, 2015)

Opinion

CURTIS L. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. No. 2:14-cv-1565-EFB P United States District Court, E.D. California. May 14, 2015

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

         On April 9, 2015, the court screened plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The April 9 order informed plaintiff of the deficiencies in his original complaint and dismissed his complaint with leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. ECF No. 12. The order further warned plaintiff that failure to comply would result in this action being dismissed. The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, or otherwise responded to the court's order.¹

1 Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective

         A party's failure to comply with any order or with the Local Rules "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." E.D. Cal. Local Rule 110. The court may dismiss an action with or without prejudice, as appropriate, if a party disobeys an order or the Local Rules. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se plaintiff's complaint for failing to obey an order to re-file an amended complaint to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for pro se plaintiff's failure to comply with local rule regarding notice of change of address affirmed).

         Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); E. D. Cal. Local Rule 110, 183(b).