Opinion

Kent G. Lehman v. The Orange County Sheriffs Department

Court
District Court, C.D. California
Filed
Sep 2, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 39.2%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KENT G. LEHMAN,

NO. SACV 24-2520-JLS (AGR)

12

Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

13 THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE

v. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

15 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPARTMENT; OC HEALTH CARE

16 AGENCY; AND ORANGE COUNTY

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,

17

18 Defendants.

19

I.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint

22

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the California Bane Act, and the “United Nations’

23

Convention 1753 Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

24 Treatment or Punishment.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1, 7.)1 The Complaint names as

25 defendants the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (“OCSD”), the OC Health

26 Care Agency (“OCHCA”), and the Orange County Board of Supervisors (“Board”).

27 1 The Complaint is not paginated consecutively. Page citations are to the

page numbers assigned by the CM/ECF in the header of the document.

28

1 The Court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to

2 determine whether it fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

3 By Order dated July 11, 2025, the Court issued an Order that:

4 1. The claims based on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth

5 Amendments are dismissed with leave to amend.

2. The claims based on equal protection and failure to train/hire under the

6

Fourteenth Amendment are dismissed with leave to amend.

7

3. The claims based on the United Nations Convention Against Torture

8

are dismissed without leave to amend.

9

4. The claims based on California’s Bane Act are dismissed with leave to

10

amend.

11

(Dkt. No. 29.) The Order notified Plaintiff that, if he chose to file a First Amended

12

Complaint, it must bear the docket number assigned to this case, be labeled “First

13

Amended Complaint,” and be complete in and of itself without reference to the

14

prior complaints, attachments, pleadings or other documents. The Order further

15

notified Plaintiff that, if he did not file a First Amended Complaint, the Court would

16 issue an Order for Service of the Complaint upon the OCSC, OCHCA, and the

17 Board for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment based only on inadequate

18 medical care claims and conditions of confinement claims as described above.

19 The Order further notified Plaintiff about the Federal Pro Se Clinic, which provides

20 information to parties who represent themselves in federal court. (Id.)

21 The Order dated July 11, 2025 was returned as undeliverable by the postal

22 service. (Dkt. No. 30.)

23 II.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

24

Local Rule 41-6 requires that a party proceeding pro se must keep the

25

Court apprised of the party’s current address. “[T]he Court may dismiss the

26

action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution” if the party fails to notify

27

28

1 | the Court in writing of a current address within 15 days after mail is returned as

2 || undeliverable by the postal service. Local Rule 41-6.

3 The Court’s mail to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable by the postal

4 | service on July 23, 2025. (Dkt. No. 30.) Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change

5 | of address or otherwise contacted the Court to advise of a current address.

6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff show cause in writing, on or

7 before September 16, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed without

prejudice for failure to prosecute. Filing a notice of change of address by

9 September 16, 2025 shall be deemed sufficient to discharge this order to show

10 cause.

Plaintiff is hereby notified that, if he does not file a notice of change of

i address by September 16, 2025, or otherwise respond to this Order to Show

12 Cause by September 16, 2025, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice

13 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v.

14 | Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962).

15

16 Wbias A earnberg,

17 | DATED: September 2, 2025

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG

18 United States Magistrate Judge

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.