Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Taek Samuel Yoon, Ice #A-042-589-267 v. Lopez; C. Houck; J. Williams
May 13, 2013
TAEK SAMUEL YOON, ICE #A-042-589-267, PLAINTIFF,
LOPEZ; C. HOUCK; J. WILLIAMS; J.W. STATON; TOBE PROPST; GILLESPIE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY AND DISMISSING ACTION FAILURE TO PROSECUTE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR (ECF No. 11)
Taek Yoon ("Plaintiff"), a former state prisoner, filed a civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (ECF No. 2). On January 7, 2013, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim and as frivolous. (ECF No. 3 at 6). Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on March 13, 2013. (ECF No. 10). At the time Plaintiff filed his FAC, he was housed at the El Centro Service Processing Center. (Id.)
On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a document to the Court entitled "Notice of Future Change of Address and Stay of Proceeding." (ECF No. 11). In this document, Plaintiff requests that the Court stop sending any mail to the address on the Court's docket and stay this action until he can provide the Court with a new address in South Korea. (Id.)
A court "'may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.'" Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)). Here, the Court takes judicial notice that they Court has received notification that Plaintiff had been removed to South Korea in March of 2013. See Yoon v. William, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 12cv0968 DMS (JMA). More than thirty days has passed and Plaintiff has failed to apprise the Court of his current location. Local Rule 83.11 requires that any "party proceeding pro se must keep the court and opposing parties advised as to current address." S.D. CIVLR 83.11. Moreover, if "such Plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within 60 days thereafter of the plaintiff's current address, the court may dismiss the action without preudice for failure to prosecute." Id. Here, more than sixty (60) days have passed and Plaintiff has failed to update the Court with his current address. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action for failure to prosecute.
The Clerk of Court shall close the file.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For