Opinion
1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK
01-17-2023
NARISSA MELERO, Plaintiff, v. GABRIEL RUIZ, JOSE VARGAS, and COUNTY OF FRESNO CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on December 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff in forma pauperis status, but struck the Complaint because it was not signed and violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and Local Rule 131(b). (Doc. No. 4). The Court directed Plaintiff to refile a signed complaint in compliance with the applicable rules within thirty (30) days. (Id.). Plaintiff has not submitted a signed complaint, as directed by this Court's December 9, 2022 Order and the time to do so has expired.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court order. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court's Rules or any order of court. Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant fails to keep the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of addresses at all times); Hanley v. Opinski, Case No. 1:16-cv-391-DAD-SAB, 2018 WL 3388510 (E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and failure to provide court with current address).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Within fourteen (14) days from the date on this Order, Plaintiff shall file a signed complaint or show good cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 and Local Rules 110 and 183. Plaintiff's failure to timely respond to this Order shall result in the undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this case without further notice