Opinion
Case No. 2:13-cv-00130-APG-NJK
10-03-2014
ORDER
"A party, not the district court, bears the burden of keeping the court apprised of any changes in [her] mailing address." Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988); see also In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1991). Additionally, Local Special Rule 2-2 requires that plaintiffs immediately file with the Court written notification of any change of address, and expressly warns that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. Local Special Rule 2-2 applies to pro se plaintiffs, such as plaintiffs here. See, e.g., Hoilien v. Bank of America, 2011 WL 933775, *1 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2011) (citing ACV Int'l, LLC v. White, 2008 WL 5273694, *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2008)).
The Court has now received notices that mail was undeliverable and that no new address is available. See Docket No. 46; see also Docket Nos. 32-33, 36-38. It also appears, however, that Plaintiffs' amended complaint provided a new address in the caption. See Docket No. 31. To comply with the requirement to update an address, parties should file a "notice of changed address" to make clear to the Court that they are changing their address. The Court is unclear from the filings whether Plaintiffs have actually changed their mailing address at this time.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file a notice with the Court, no later than October 17, 2014, indicating the address at which they will be receiving case-related mailings. The failure to comply with this order will result in an order to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, up to and including case-dispositive sanctions.
In light of the confusion as to Plaintiffs' mailing address, the Clerk's Office is INSTRUCTED to mail notice of this order to both the address provided at Docket No. 31 and the address provided at Docket No. 28.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 3, 2014
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge