# (PC) Gann v. Vera-Brown

> District Court, E.D. California · December 23, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10049412

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** December 23, 2022
- **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/10049412

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 NATHANIEL MARCUS GANN, Case No. 1:18-cv-0084-BAM (PC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED
13 v. FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
14 VERA-BROWN, TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
15 Defendant.
16
17 Plaintiff Nathaniel Marcus Gann (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this
18 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s second
19 amended complaint against Defendant Vera-Brown (“Defendant”) for deliberate indifference to
20 serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to
21 Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 52.)
22 On September 29, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion to vacate
23 scheduling order, pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground
24 that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit. (ECF No. 69.) On
25 October 17, 2022, the Court’s order was returned “Undeliverable, Out to Court.” That order was
26 mailed to Plaintiff’s current address of record, which has not been changed since September 24,
27 2021. (ECF No. 47.)
28 ///
1 Pursuant to Local Rules 182 and 183, a pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify
2 the Clerk, the Court and all other parties of any change of address or telephone number. Local
3 Rules 182(f), 183(b). Additionally, Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure . . . of a party to
4 comply with these [Local] Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by
5 the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Further, the failure
6 of Plaintiff to prosecute this action is grounds for dismissal. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
7 Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2006).
8 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, within
9 twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, why this action should not be
10 dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff can comply with this order to
11 show cause by filing a notice informing the Court of his current address. The failure to respond
12 to this order will result in dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to
13 prosecute.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15

16 Dated: December 23, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10049412. Public record. Not legal advice.