Opinion
CV 21-1176 CAS (PVC)
03-30-2022
Felipe D. Soto v. Joshua Epstein
PROCEEDINGS: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS
Present: The Honorable Pedro V. Castillo, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
HONORABLE PEDRO V. CASTILLO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On January 18, 2021, Plaintiff Felipe D. Soto, a California state prisoner proceeding pro se, constructively filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1). The Court dismissed the Complaint, and the subsequent First Amended Complaint, with leave to amend due to defects in pleading. (Dkt. Nos. 4 & 15). Plaintiff then filed a Second Amended Complaint. ("SAC," Dkt. No. 19).
On March 9, 2022, the Court concluded that the SAC adequately stated a claim and issued an Order re Civil Rights Case, Order re Service of Process, and Order Directing Service of Process by the United States Marshal (collectively, the "Service Orders") for the purpose of effecting service of the SAC on the sole Defendant by the United States Marshal Service. (Dkt. Nos. 22-24). Copies of the Service Orders were mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record.
On March 25, 2022, the Order re Service of Process and Order Directing Service of Process were returned to the Court as undeliverable with a notation "Inmate Discharged Unable to Forward." (Dkt. Nos. 28-29). Thus, the Court does not have a current address for Plaintiff and is unable to move this case forward.
Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to the Central District's Local Rule 41-6, he has an obligation to keep the Court informed of his current address of record or the Court may dismiss this action:
A party proceeding pro se must keep the Court and all other parties informed of the party's current address as well as any telephone No. and email address. If a Court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address of record is returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable and the pro se party has not filed a notice of change of address within 14 days of the service date of the order or other Court document, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.C.D. Cal. L.R. 41-6.
The deadline for Plaintiff to notify the Court of his current address was March 23, 2022, i.e., fourteen days after the date the Service Orders issued on March 9, 2022. Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by April 13, 2022 why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-6 for Plaintiff's failure to provide a current address. Plaintiff may discharge this Order by filing a response with a current address.
If Plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue his claims, he may voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal form is attached for Plaintiff's convenience. Plaintiff is not required to seek permission of the Court to dismiss his case because the sole Defendant has not yet appeared or responded. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(1). However, Plaintiff is cautioned that any dismissed claims may be subject to a statute of limitations defense if Plaintiff seeks to reassert them in a later action.
Plaintiff is expressly warned that the failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey court orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Deputy Clerk is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff at his current address of record: Felipe D. Soto, CDC BH-5617, Siena Conservation Center, Facility A-12-11, 5150 O'Byrnes Ferry Road, Jamestown, CA 95327.
IT IS SO ORDERED.