(PC) Rood v. Department of Corrections ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COLTON JAMES ROOD, 1:19-cv-01517-JLT-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. FEBRUARY 28, 2024 DEADLINE 14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM and N. KEOVILAY-SEE, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff Colton James Rood initiated this action by filing a pro se civil rights complaint 20 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on October 21, 2019, while detained in the Shasta County Jail. (Doc. No. 21 1). On January 6, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis under 22 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and assessed the $350.00 filing fee. (See Doc. No. 15). At the time Plaintiff 23 was granted IFP status he was incarcerated at the Shasta County Jail. (Doc. No. 13). 24 On January 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a change of address indicating that he had been 25 released from custody, which the Court independently confirmed through CDCR’s Inmate 26 Locator. (See Doc. No. 74). On January 9, 2024, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to 27 either pay the remaining balance due on the filing fee of $350.00 or complete a new long form in 28 forma pauperis (“IFP”) application because the fee collection provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was 1 | no longer enforceable against Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 77). The January 9, 2024 Order gave Plaintiff 2 | until February 9, 2024 to comply. Ud. at 3). As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has neither 3 | filed an updated IFP application nor paid the $350.00 balance due on the filing fee originally 4 | assessed, and the time to do so has expired. (See docket.) 5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) permits courts to involuntarily dismiss an action 6 | when a litigant fails to prosecute an action or fails to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. 7 | P.41(b); see Applied Underwriters v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 889 (9th Cir. 2019) (citations 8 | omitted); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) 9 | (‘[T]he consensus among our sister circuits, with which we agree, is that courts may dismiss 10 | under Rule 41(b) sua sponte, at least under certain circumstances.”). Local Rule 110 similarly 11 | permits courts to impose sanctions on a party who fails to comply with a court order. 12 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 13 1. On or before February 28, 2024, Plaintiff shall comply with the Court’s January 9, 14 2024 Order, or show cause why the Court should not recommend this case be 15 dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiffs failure to prosecute this action and/or his 16 failure to timely comply with the Court’s January 9, 2024 Order. 17 2. Plaintiffs failure to timely respond to this Order or seek an extension of time to 18 respond will result in the undersigned recommending the case be dismissed without 19 prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 and Local Rule 110. 20 *I | Dated: _ February 13,2024 Mihaw. Wh. foareh fackte 22 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 33 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28