The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Pro se Plaintiff Walter David Gray (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 on January 6, 2011, pursuant to the Court's Order re Leave to File Action Without Prepayment of Full Filing Fee.
On March 28, 2011, the Court issued an Order directing service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants M. Taber, S. Lopez, Joseph Branch and Ardrick Elmore.
On September 29, 2011, Defendants Joseph Branch, Ardrick Elmore, S. Lopez and M. Taber filed "Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Complaint;" "Declaration of Appeals Coordinator in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint;" "Declaration of D. Foston in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint;" "Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint;" "Notice to Pro Se Inmate for Opposing Defendants' Unenumerated 12(b) Motion under Wyatt
V. Terhune;" "[Proposed] Order Dismissing Complaint."
On October 4, 2011, the Court issued a Minute Order regarding Plaintiff's obligation in responding to Defendants' Motion under Wyatt v. Terhune, 314 F.3d 1108, 1119 (9th Cir. 2003).
On November 10, 2011, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint."
On November 28, 2011, Plaintiff filed an "Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint" and "Declaration of Walter David Gray re Objections/Opposition."
On May 17, 2012, a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge was issued granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff had not fully exhausted his administrative remedies; Plaintiff's claims of constitutional violations based on his arrest and incarceration were barred by the favorable termination rule; Plaintiff's supervisory claim was vague and conclusory; and Plaintiff failed to state an excessive force claim. (Docket No. 76.)
The Court docket lists Plaintiff's address as CIM RCE Palm Hall West - ADA Cell 121, P. O. Box 441, Chino, California 91708.
On May 25, 2012, the Court was informed that Plaintiff is no longer in custody. (See, "Return to Sender - Inmate Paroled," Docket Nos. 77 and 78.)
On June 4, 2012, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re Dismissal requiring Plaintiff to notify the Court of his current address.
Central District Local Rule 41-6 provides:
"DISMISSAL - FAILURE OF PRO SE PLAINTIFF TO KEEP COURT APPRISED OF CURRENT ADDRESS - A party appearing pro se shall keep the Court apprised of such party's current address and telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se Plaintiff's address of record is returned undelivered by the Post Office, and if within fifteen (15) days of the service date, such Plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and opposing parties ...