UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 10, 2012
TITLE: JANE DOE
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. CHRISTIAN CURRY
THE LOS ANGELES POLICE DEP'T, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Andrew J. Wistrich, Magistrate Judge
PRESENT: HON. ANDREW J. WISTRICH, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None Present None Present
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO INFORM COURT OF CURRENT ADDRESS
Plaintiffs Doe and Curry are ordered to show cause in writing no later than October 24, 2012 why this action should not be dismissed for failure to inform the Court of their current address. Plaintiffs may attempt to show cause by filing one or more declarations under penalty of perjury, with supporting exhibits if needed.
A litigant is required to keep the court apprised of his or her current address. Failure to do so is ground for dismissal. See C.D. Cal. Local Rule 41-6*fn1 ; Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a pro se plaintiff's action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to keep court apprised of current mailing address as required by the court's local rule).
Plaintiffs' address of record is 36 West 36th Street, 6th Floor, New York, New York 10018. Court orders filed on January 17, 2012 and September 7, 2012 that were mailed to plaintiffs at their address of record were returned to the Court as undeliverable by the United States Postal Service. The United States Postal Service returned the mail with stamps stating "Return to Sender" and "Unable to Forward."
Plaintiffs must provide the Court with an address to which mail can be sent and received by plaintiffs without being returned as undeliverable. The Court should not be left in doubt about whether plaintiffs have received orders mailed to the address plaintiffs have provided.
This matter will be deemed submitted on the basis of the papers timely filed, without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. Local R. 7-15.
Plaintiffs are cautioned that their failure to show cause as directed in this order within the time allowed may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.