# Daniel Dealba v. R.C. Johnson

> District Court, C.D. California · November 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042313

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, C.D. California
- **Decided:** November 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042313

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10042313. Public record. Not legal advice.