Soto v. Lujan-Grisham ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO MANUEL SOTO, Plaintiff, v. No. 20-cv-375-MV-KRS METROPOLITAN DETENTION CENTER, LISA MORTON, FNU RICHARDSON, RALPH HERNANDEZ, Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte in connection with Plaintiff Manuel Soto’s Amended Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint (Doc. 7) (the “Complaint”). Plaintiff filed the Complaint on May 13, 2020, when he was a detainee at the Metropolitan Detention Center. (Doc. 7). In March 2021, Plaintiff notified the Court of his new address at the Penitentiary of New Mexico in Santa Fe, New Mexico (“PNM”). (Doc. 14). A Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed to Plaintiff at his address of record at PNM on October 26, 2022, was returned as undeliverable on November 7, 2022. (Doc. 24). The returned mail and the New Mexico Corrections Department’s website indicates that Plaintiff has been released from PNM and is on probation/parole. See https://search.cd.nm.gov/history_search_results (last visited on Dec. 27, 2022); (Doc. 24). Although it appears that Plaintiff is no longer receiving mail at PNM, the Court has not been notified of his new address. Pursuant to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico’s Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.6, pro se parties have “a continuing duty to notify the Clerk, in writing, of any change in their mailing address[.]” It is incumbent on pro se litigants to follow the local procedural rules. Brandenburg v. Beaman, 632 F.2d 120, 122 (10th Cir. 1980). Because Plaintiff has failed to comply with Local Rule 83.6, he will be required to show cause why this action should not be dismissed. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff must notify the Court in writing of his new address within thirty days of entry of this Order, or show cause in writing why this proceeding should not be dismissed. Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal without further notice. KEVINR.SWEAZEA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE