Nicholas C Pappas v. Rojas
Filing
11
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by August 19, 2013, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. (kca)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-2794-JFW (SP)
Title
NICHOLAS C. PAPPAS v. SERGEANT ROJAS
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 5, 2013
Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge
Kimberly I. Carter
None
None
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present
None Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Complaint Should Not Be
Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute
On May 23, 2013, plaintiff Nicholas C. Pappas, a California prisoner proceeding
pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 28, 2013, the
court issued an Initial Civil Rights Case Order, advising plaintiff that the court was
screening the complaint and that further directions would follow. In paragraph 8 of that
same Order, the court also instructed plaintiff that "plaintiff must immediately notify the
court (and defendants or defendants’ attorneys) of any change in plaintiff’s address and
the effective date. If plaintiff fails to keep the court informed of a correct mailing
address, this case may be dismissed under Local Rule 41-6, which states as follows:
If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned
undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service
date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of his
current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for
want of prosecution."
On June 24, 2013, this court, having completed screening of the complaint,
dismissed it with leave to file a First Amended Complaint by July 24, 2013. The court
issued the Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend, and mailed that Order to
plaintiff at his address of record, his place of incarceration at the Men's Central Jail in
Los Angeles, California. Almost two weeks have passed beyond the July 24, 2013
deadline to file a First Amended Complaint, and the court has not received a First
Amended Complaint or any other communication from plaintiff. Instead, the mailing to
plaintiff with the Order Dismissing Complaint with Leave to Amend was returned to the
court as undeliverable on July 29, 2013, with an indication that plaintiff has been
released from custody.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-2794-JFW (SP)
Date
Title
August 5, 2013
NICHOLAS C. PAPPAS v. SERGEANT ROJAS
It therefore appears that plaintiff has failed to follow the court’s Order to
immediately notify the court of a change of address. Plaintiff has also failed to file a
First Amended Complaint within the time allowed for him to do so. Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the court’s orders, and failure to comply with Local Rule 41-6, renders this
action subject to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order and failure to
prosecute.
Accordingly, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, that is, by
August 19, 2013, plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, why this
action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order.
Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this Order to Show
Cause will be deemed by the court as consent to the dismissal of this action without
prejudice.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
