Tapia v. Denver Sheriff Department ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-01314-RM-SBP JULIUS J. TAPIA, Plaintiff, v. DENVER SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, CAPTAIN JOHNSON, DEPUTY DE LA CRUZ, DEPUTY WASH, DEPUTY BOSVELD, and DEPUTY DEPAHH, Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Susan Prose, United States Magistrate Judge This matter is before this court sua sponte. The pro se Plaintiff Julius J. Tapia filed his complaint in this lawsuit on May 26, 2023. ECF No. 5. At the time, he was incarcerated in the Denver County Jail. However, beginning with documents that the court mailed to Plaintiff on May 31, 2023, the jail has returned all of the court’s mailings by noting: “Released: No longer in custody.” ECF Nos. 13-19. To date, Mr. Tapia has not filed a notice of change of address as required by Local Rule 5.1(c). See D.C.COLO.LCivR 5.1(c) (“Notice of change of name, mailing address, or telephone number of an unrepresented prisoner or party shall be filed not later than five days after the change.”); see also Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir. 1992) (pro se litigants “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants”). It is unclear whether Mr. Tapia intends to proceed with this action due to: the return of his mail as undeliverable, his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.1(c), and not otherwise communicating with the Court since mailing his statement of account on May 25, 2023. ECF No. 6-1. Therefore, the court directs Mr. Tapia to show cause in writing and filed with the court as to why this court should not recommend the action be dismissed due to his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.1(c) and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); D.C.COLO.LCivR 41.1; U.S. ex rel. Jimenez v. Health Net, Inc., 400 F.3d 853, 855 (10th Cir. 2005) (“dismissal is an appropriate disposition against a party who disregards court orders and fails to proceed as required by court rules”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Tapia file, within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this order, a written response explaining why this court should not recommend this action be dismissed due to his failure to comply with Local Rule 5.1(c) and failure to prosecute. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, if Mr. Tapia fails to file a response in compliance with this order within the time allowed, this court will recommend the action be dismissed without further notice. The dismissal will be without prejudice. DATED: August 17, 2023 BY THE COURT: Susan Prose United States Magistrate Judge