Opinion
ORDER [
ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.
By order filed April 10, 2015, plaintiff was directed to file, within thirty days, an amended complaint and a new in forma pauperis affidavit or pay the appropriate filing fees. See ECF No. 5. Plaintiff was informed that failure to file an amended complaint or a new application to proceed in forma pauperis (or to pay the filing fees) would result in the dismissal of this action. Id. at 4. The thirty-day period has expired, and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order.
The docket indicates that plaintiff was served with a copy of the court's order at his address of record, the El Dorado County Jail in Placerville. A subsequent order of the court, filed April 14, 2015, was returned because plaintiff is no longer at incarcerated at the El Dorado County Jail. See ECF No. 6. However, pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. It is plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court appraised of his current address at all times.
The court's review of the Inmate Locator websites operated by El Dorado County and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicate that plaintiff is currently incarcerated at neither location. See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/search.aspx, and http://edcapps.edcgov.us/sheriff/jail/jail_datalist.asp?psearch. This Court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed.R.Evid. 201; see also City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1224 n.2 (9th Cir. 2004) ("We may take judicial notice of a record of a state agency not subject to reasonable dispute.").
In light of plaintiff's failure to respond to the court's April 10, 2015 order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b).