Opinion

Daniel Dealba v. R.C. Johnson

Court
District Court, C.D. California
Filed
Nov 8, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 18.0%

court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to 12 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in 13 district court calendars

How later courts described this case

  • court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to 12 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in 13 district court calendars

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 WESTERN DIVISION

11 DANIEL DEALBA, ) No. CV 20-2366-PA (AGR)

)

12 Plaintiff, )

)

13 v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS

) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

14 WARDEN R.C. JOHNSON, et al., ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE

) TO PROSECUTE

15 Defendants. )

)

16 )

)

17

For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, if

18

there be any, in writing on or before November 24, 2021, why this action should not be

19

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order.

20

A. Procedural History

21

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a First Amended

22

Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff sued the following defendants for civil rights violations:

23

(1) Warden R.C. Johnson; (2) Corrections Officer Karanikolas; and (3) Board of Parole

24

Commissioners R. Grounds, B. Roberts, D. Long (incorrectly sued as Lang) and A.

25

Soares. (Dkt. No. 6.)

26

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. (Dkt. No. 31.) The court set a

27

briefing schedule and granted Plaintiff three extensions of time to file an opposition on

28

1 order setting a deadline of October 28, 2021 was returned as undeliverable by the

2 postal service and filed on September 3, 2021. A notation on the envelope indicates

3 Plaintiff was paroled. (Dkt. No. 54.) The court’s subsequent docket entry was also

4 returned as undeliverable by the postal service and filed on September 17, 2021. (Dkt.

5 No. 55.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss by the

6 deadline of October 28, 2021 and did not request an extension of time to do so.

7 B. Discussion

8 It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s

9 action because of his failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ.

10 P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed.

11 2d 734 (1962) (court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to

12 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in

13 district court calendars).

14 A party proceeding pro se “must keep the Court and all other parties informed of

15 the party’s current address as well as any telephone number and email address.” Local

16 Rule 41-6. When a court order or other mail served on a pro se plaintiff at his address

17 of record is returned as undeliverable by the postal service, and that plaintiff has not

18 filed a notice of change of address within 14 days after service of the court order, “the

19 Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id.

20 The court’s August 24, 2021 order was returned as undeliverable by the postal

21 service. Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address and has not responded to

22 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC.

23 C. ORDER

24 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before November 24, 2021, Plaintiff

25 shall show good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be

26 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court

27 order.

28

1 If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or

2| otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before November 24, 2021,

3|| this action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff's failure to

4| prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R.,

370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).

6

7 Ai $A Kean

DATED: November 8, 2021

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.