Opinion
22-CV-1814 TWR (KSC)
10-20-2023
LARRY JONES, Jr., CDCR #BI-0619, Plaintiff, v. RAYMOND MADDEN; KATHLEEN ALLISON; KRISTIN HAAS; J. SALAZAR; C. TAYLOR; J. LUGO; and DOCTOR ENFIELD, Defendants.
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO UPDATE PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS OF RECORD AND TO RE-SERVE PLAINTIFF WITH COURT'S SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE
(ECF NOS. 12, 13)
HONORABLE TODD W. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On September 21, 2023, this Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Effect Service and granted Plaintiff thirty days to file a response. (ECF No. 12 (“OSC”) at 2-3.) The Court's order was mailed to Plaintiff on September 21, 2023, and returned as undeliverable on October 17, 2023, bearing the handwritten abbreviation “COR.” (See generally ECF Nos. 12-13.)
When Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was housed at California State Prison, Lancaster. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 1.) On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address advising that he had been moved to California State Prison, Los Angeles County “Z ASU.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) From the Court's review of the California inmate locator, Plaintiff is now housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. See CDCR Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Results.aspx (last visited Oct. 18, 2023); see also Mitchell v. Ryer, No. 23-CV-661-TWR-MSB, 2023 WL 5354156, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2023) (taking judicial notice of public record available on online inmate locator and noting plaintiff had been transferred to different prison); McCoy v. Le, No. 21-CV-1755-BAS-LL, 2021 WL 5449004, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021) (noting the court may take judicial notice of public records available on online inmate locators). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address as required. See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(b). The Court reminds Plaintiff that, “[i]f mail directed to a pro se plaintiff by the Clerk at the plaintiff's last designated address is returned by the Post Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id.
In light of Plaintiff's relocation to a different facility, the Clerk of the Court SHALL UPDATE Plaintiff's address on the docket and SHALL RE-SERVE Plaintiff with the Court's September 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12). The Court also EXTENDS Plaintiff's time to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause as follows: No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure timely to effect service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b). Should Plaintiff wish to proceed in this matter, Plaintiff SHALL FILE a motion for leave to effect service of process outside of the ninety-day service limit. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring a showing of “good cause”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(B) (requiring a showing of “excusable neglect”). If Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12) within the time provided in this Order, the Court will enter a final order of dismissal without prejudice for failure timely to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1 and for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District's Civil Local Rules, and this Court's Order pursuant to Civil Local Rules 41.1(b) and 83.1(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.