Merelo v. Ruiz ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NARISSA MELERO, Case No. 1:22-cv-01579-ADA-HBK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE 14 GABRIEL RUIZ, JOSE VARGAS, and COUNTY OF FRESNO CHILD 15 PROTECTIVE SERVICES, 16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the Court upon periodic review of the file. Plaintiff, who is 19 proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint on 20 December 8, 2022. (Doc. No. 1, Complaint). On December 12, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff 21 in forma pauperis status, but struck the Complaint because it was not signed and violated Fed. R. 22 Civ. P. 11 and Local Rule 131(b). (Doc. No. 4). The Court directed Plaintiff to refile a signed 23 complaint in compliance with the applicable rules within thirty (30) days. (Id.). Plaintiff has not 24 submitted a signed complaint, as directed by this Court’s December 9, 2022 Order and the time to 25 do so has expired. 26 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits the court to involuntarily dismiss an action 27 when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with other Rules or with a court order. 28 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 1 | 2019) (citations omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th 2 | Cir. 2005) (“[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may 3 | dismiss under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 4 | similarly permits the court to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with the court’s 5 | Rules or any order of court. Precedent supports a dismissal of a case when a litigant fails to keep 6 | the court appraised on his address. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988) (affirming lower 7 | court and finding no abuse of discretion when district court dismissed case without prejudice after 8 | pro se plaintiff did not comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs keep court apprised of 9 || addresses at all times); Hanley v. Opinski, Case No. 1:16-cv-391-DAD-SAB, 2018 WL 3388510 10 | (E.D. Ca. July 10, 2018) (dismissing action for failure to prosecute and failure to provide court with 11 | current address). 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 Within fourteen (14) days from the date on this Order, Plaintiff shall file a signed 14 | complaint or show good cause why this action should not be dismissed under Rule 41 and Local 15 | Rules 110 and 183. Plaintiff's failure to timely respond to this Order shall result in the 16 || undersigned recommending the district court dismiss this case without further notice. 17 18 Dated: _ January 17, 2023 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28