1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 12 ELLIOTT LEW GRIFFIN, ) NO. CV 18-0687-DOC (AGR) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 v. ) ) 15 Dr. E. FLORES, et al., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 ) 18 On January 26, 2018, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se and in 19 forma pauperis, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He named the 20 following defendants in their individual and official capacities: Dr. E. Flores, a 21 physician at North Kern State Prison (“NKSP”); Dr. K. Kaur (sued as “Kaar”), a 22 physician at California Health Care Facility (“CHCF”); Dr. J. Krpan, a physician at 23 CHCF; O. Siahaan, a physician’s assistant at CHCF (sued as “Siqhaan”); and Dr. 24 S. Pido, a physician at California Men’s Colony (“CMC”). 25 On May 2, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On June 19, 2018, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the 27 motion. On June 22, 2018, Defendants filed a reply. 28 1 On January 9, 2019, the case was referred to the prisoner settlement 2 program. (Dkt. No. 25.) The proceedings were ordered to take place within 90 3 days of the date the order was filed. On February 19, 2019, the settlement 4 proceeding was held. The case was not settled. (Dkt. No. 35.) 5 On February 14, 2019, the this court issued a report and recommendation 6 (“Report”) recommending that the district court issue an order (1) accepting the 7 Report; (2) denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss the official capacity claim 8 against Defendant Pido for injunctive relief; (3) granting Defendants’ motion to 9 dismiss all other official-capacity claims without leave to amend; (4) denying 10 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant 11 Pido; (5) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss all other individual-capacity 12 claims with leave to amend; and (6) granting Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended 13 Complaint. Any objections to the Report were due by March 11, 2019. (Dkt. Nos. 14 26, 27.) No objections were filed by the parties. 15 On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff lodged a First Amended Complaint. 16 On March 15, 2019, the District Court accepted the findings and 17 recommendation in the Report. The District Court granted in part and denied in 18 part Defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows: (1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss 19 the official capacity claim against Defendant Pido for injunctive relief was denied; 20 (2) Defendants’ motion to dismiss all other official-capacity claims was granted 21 without leave to amend; (3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eighth Amendment 22 claim against Defendant Pido was denied; (4) Defendants’ motion to dismiss all 23 other individual-capacity claims was granted with leave to amend; and (5) Plaintiff 24 was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint. The Clerk was directed to 25 file the First Amended Complaint lodged by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 29.) 26 On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed. 27 (Dkt. No. 30.) 28 On March 20, 2019, in light of the referral to the prisoner settlement 1 program, this court issued a minute order suspending the deadline to file 2 responsive pleadings to the FAC. (Dkt. No. 31.) 3 On March 25, 2019, the court’s mail was returned as undeliverable by the 4 postal service indicating “Return to Sender, Attempted - Not Known, Unable to 5 Forward” and “Paroled/Discharged” (Dkt. No. 32.) 6 On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address. The 7 court updated Plaintiff’s mailing address in the court’s Case Management 8 Electronic Case Filing system and re-mailed Plaintiff the Order Accepting 9 Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 29, 10 and the Minute Order re Further Proceedings, Dkt. No. 31. 11 On March 28, 2019, the court’s mail was returned by the postal service 12 indicating “Paroled/Discharged.” (Dkt. NO. 34.) 13 On May 8, 2020, the court’s mail dated April 2, 2020 (report of prisoner 14 settlement proceeding) was returned by the postal service indicating “Not at this 15 address.” (Dkt. No. 36.) 16 Local Rule 41-6 requires that a Plaintiff proceeding pro se must keep the 17 Court apprised of the Plaintiff’s current address. In addition, Local Rule 41-6 18 provides that “the Court may dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want 19 of prosecution” if the Plaintiff fails to notify the Court in writing of Plaintiff’s current 20 address within 15 days after mail is returned as undeliverable by the Postal 21 Service. 22 Plaintiff has failed to notify the court in writing of Plaintiff’s current address 23 within 15 days after mail is returned as undeliverable as required in Local Rule 24 41-6. 25 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, on or before June 25, 2020, Plaintiff 26 shall show good cause, if there be any, why this action should not be dismissed 27 without prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court 28 order. Filing a Notice of Current Address on or before June 25, 2020, shall 1 || be deemed compliance with this Order to Show Cause. 2 If Plaintiff does not timely file a Notice of Current Address on or before June 25, 2020, or otherwise respond to this Order to Show Cause, 4|| the court may recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice 5 | for plaintiff's failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with a court order. See Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30, 82 S. Ct. 1386, 8 L. Ed. 7 || 2d 734 (1962). 8 DATED: June 4, 2020 i A Kenbigy 10 UNITE D STATES MAG ISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28