Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Neumann v. Veal

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 18, 2009

CHARLES NEUMANN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARTIN VEAL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Defendant's motion to compel responses and for sanctions (Doc. 61). Plaintiff has not responded to this pending motion.

It appears from the motion that Plaintiff has been paroled, and has not informed either the court nor Defendants of his current address. Local Rule 83-182(f) requires attorneys and parties proceeding pro se to keep the court and all other parties apprised of any change of address or telephone number. It also provides that "[a]bsent such notice, service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or party shall be fully effective." Local Rule 83-182(f). Plaintiff was previously informed of this requirement by court order. (See Doc. 21).

Plaintiff is therefore required to show cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of service of this order, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to keep the court informed of his current address. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090818

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.