Case 5:22-cv-00586-SB-AGR Document 15 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 EDWIN ERROL ENGLETON, ) No. EDCV 22-586-SB (AGR) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ) ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 14 RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF’S ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE DEPT. et al, ) TO PROSECUTE 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 19 For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, if 20 there be any, in writing on or before August 18, 2022, why this action should not be 21 dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or comply with a court order. 22 In this prisoner civil rights action, on May 18, 2022, the court issued an order 23 directing service process of the summons and complaint by the United States Marshal 24 upon Defendants Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and Sergeant Vencent. (Dkt. 25 No. 8.) On June 6, 2022, Process Receipt and Return (Form USM-285) of summons 26 and Complaint upon Defendants Riverside County Sheriff’s Department and Sargent 27 Vencent were filed indicating service on May 24, 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 10-12.) 28 Case 5:22-cv-00586-SB-AGR Document 15 Filed 07/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:89

1 On July 1 and 5, 2022, the court’s mail was returned as undeliverable by the 2 postal service with a notation “inactive.” (Dkt. Nos. 13-14.) The CDCR’s online inmate 3 locator website does not show an inmate by Plaintiff’s name and CDCR number 4 (BP8212). Upon inquiry at the last known prison where Plaintiff was previously housed, 5 the court was informed that Plaintiff was released on June 14, 2022. To date, Plaintiff 6 has not filed a notice of change of address. 7 It is well established that a district court has the authority to dismiss a plaintiff’s 8 action because of his failure to prosecute or comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. 9 P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash Railroad Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 10 2d 734 (1962) (court’s authority to dismiss for lack of prosecution is necessary to 11 prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and avoid congestion in 12 district court calendars); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (district 13 court may dismiss action for failure to comply with order of court); Carey v. King, 856 14 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (district may dismiss action for failure to prosecute 15 after mail is returned by postal service as undeliverable). 16 Plaintiff is advised that: “If mail directed by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s 17 address of record is returned undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen 18 (15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and 19 opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action 20 with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.” Local Rule 41-6. 21 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before August 18, 2022, Plaintiff shall 22 show good cause, if there be any, in writing why this action should not be dismissed 23 without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. 24 If Plaintiff does not timely file a response to this Order to Show Cause or 25 otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before August 18, 2022, the 26 action is subject to dismissal without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to prosecute 27 and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 28 2 Case 5:22-cv-00586-SB-AGR Document15 Filed 07/18/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:90

1 || 629-30 (1962). Filing a notice of change of address by August 18, 2022 shall discharge 2|| this order to show cause. * Ubias A Keanbag, 5|| DATED: July 18, 2022 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28