From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dial v. Heatley

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 13, 2015
2:12-cv-2569 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)

Opinion


RODNEY DIAL, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-2569 AC P United States District Court, E.D. California. March 13, 2015

          ORDER

          ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

         Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In response to this court's order filed January 22, 2015, defendants informed the court that plaintiff is now incarcerated at the California Correctional Health Care Facility (CHCF) in Stockton, California, and that his deposition was completed there on January 14, 2015. See ECF No. 57. Review of the Inmate Locator website operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that plaintiff remains incarcerated at CHCF.

See http://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/. 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.").

         Accordingly, although plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address, the Clerk of Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to telephone CHCF forthwith to identify which facility plaintiff is assigned, and therefore the mailing address that the Clerk shall then note on the docket as plaintiff's current address of record, including for purposes of serving the instant order.

Parties proceeding in pro se are under a continuing duty to notify the court of any address change, and failure to do so provides grounds for dismissal. See Local Rules 182(f), 183(b).

         Further, on February 12, 2015, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment in this action. Plaintiff's opposition was due on or before March 5, 2015. See Local Rule 230(l). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within twenty-one days after the filing date of this order, plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to the motion for summary judgment or a statement of non-opposition. Failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).


Summaries of

Dial v. Heatley

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
Mar 13, 2015
2:12-cv-2569 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Dial v. Heatley

Case Details

Full title:RODNEY DIAL, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 13, 2015

Citations

2:12-cv-2569 AC P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015)