UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 6, 2011
ED FREEDMAN, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Frederick F. Mumm, United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Frederick F. Mumm, United States Magistrate Judge
James Munoz None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present None Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING
On November 10, 2011, defendant Milazzo filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint in this action. On November 16, 2011, the Court issued an order setting a briefing schedule regarding defendant's motion. The service copy of that order sent to plaintiff has since been returned to the Court with the notation "Released to Custody Release."
Pursuant to Local Rule 41-6:
A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and opposing parties apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said plaintiff's current address, the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Rule 41-6; see Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff is ordered to show cause within fifteen (15) days of the date of this order why this action should not be dismissed as to him for his failure to inform the Court of change of address.
Failure to file a timely response to this order within the time specified will be deemed consent to the dismissal of this action.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.