Carl R. Bedford, III v. Unknown ( 2020 )

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CARL R. BEDFORD, III, ) NO. EDCV 20-0336-GW (KS) 11 ) Plaintiff, 12 ) v. ) 13 ) ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF DISMISSAL 14 UNKNOWN, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) 16 _________________________________ ) 17 18 On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights 19 complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts that prison officials assaulted 20 him, causing him serious injury, and that they interfered with his attempts to seek legal redress 21 of the assault. (See id.) However, the handwritten complaint does not clearly delineate the 22 cause(s) of action or the relief sought. As such, it violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure and is subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 24 granted. See FED.R.CIV.P. 8; United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 25 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaint violates Rules 8 if a defendant would have 26 difficulty understanding and responding to it); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (Congress 27 requires district courts to dismiss civil rights complaints brought by prisoners if the court 28 1 determines that the complaint, or any portion thereof, fails to state a claim upon which relief 2 can be granted). 3 4 Also on February 19, 2020, the Court notified Plaintiff that he had failed to pay the 5 filing fee and had not filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) On March 6 4, 2020, after two weeks had passed and Plaintiff had not responded to the Court’s notification, 7 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause, no later than March 25, 2020, why the action should 8 not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee or obtain authorization to proceed without 9 prepayment of the fee. (Dkt. No. 4.) 10 11 More than seven weeks have now passed since the Court issued its February 19, 2020 12 notification, and more than two weeks have passed since Plaintiff’s March 25, 2020 deadline 13 for paying the filing fee or filing a request to proceed without prepayment of the fee. To date, 14 Plaintiff has neither paid the filing fee nor requested to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 16 Further, on March 16, 2020 and March 27, 2020, the Court received mail it sent to 17 Plaintiff returned and marked undeliverable because Plaintiff is “out of custody.” (Dkt. Nos. 18 9, 10.) Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 41-6, the action is now also subject to dismissal 19 for want of prosecution because Plaintiff failed to notify the Court in writing of his change in 20 address within 15 days of March 16, 2020—the date that mail directed to him by the Clerk’s 21 office was first returned to the Court marked undelivered. L.R. 41-6 (“A party proceeding pro 22 se shall keep the Court . . . apprised of such party’s current address . . . . If mail directed by 23 the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, 24 and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify in writing, the 25 Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action 26 with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.”). 27 28 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that 2 || this action is DISMISSED. 3 DATED: April 15, 2020 Laing XK, 6 HON. GEORGE H. WU , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 ? Presented by: 10 11 | Deen Blsenson 3 KAREN L. STEVENSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28