(PS) Robinson v. Vallejo CA

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJuly 1, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-03194
StatusUnknown

This text of (PS) Robinson v. Vallejo CA ((PS) Robinson v. Vallejo CA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
(PS) Robinson v. Vallejo CA, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILL ROBINSON, III, Case No. 2:24-cv-03194-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 VALLEJO CA POLICE DEPT., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Will Robinson, III, is proceeding in this action pro se.1 On April 14, 2025, 18 the Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis (“IFP”) and granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to submit a new IFP request on a 20 proper form. (ECF No. 10.) This order was mailed to Plaintiff by mail. However, on May 21 5, 2025, the mail returned as undeliverable. To date, Plaintiff has not submitted a new 22 IFP request or updated his address with the Court. 23 A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal of a 24 plaintiff’s case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), where the plaintiff fails 25 to prosecute his or her case or fails to comply with the court’s orders, the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 32, 44 (1991) (recognizing that a court “may act sua sponte to dismiss a suit for failure to 2 prosecute”); Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 3 (9th Cir. 2005) (approving sua sponte dismissals under Rule 41(b)); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 4 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal 5 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to 6 comply with any order of the court.”). This Court’s Local Rules are in accord. See E.D. 7 Cal. Local Rule 110 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with 8 any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 9 sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.”); E.D. 10 Cal. Local Rule 183(a) (providing that a pro se party’s failure to comply with the Federal 11 Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s Local Rules, and other applicable law may support, 12 among other things, dismissal of that party’s action). 13 The Court has considered whether this action should be dismissed at this juncture 14 due to Plaintiffs’ failure to file an IFP request on a proper form as ordered by the Court 15 and for failure to notify the Court of his current address. As noted above, Plaintiff’s copy 16 of the Court’s last order was returned as undeliverable. Despite such return, Plaintiff was 17 properly served. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record 18 address of the party is fully effective. It is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the Court 19 apprised of his current address at all times. It appears that Plaintiff has failed to comply 20 with Local Rule 183(b), which provides that: 21 A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If 22 mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to 23 notify the Court and opposing parties within thirty (30) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the 24 action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 25 Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court first attempts lesser 26 sanctions by issuing this order to show cause. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days to 27 respond to this order to show cause and file an IFP request on a proper form and 28 provide a current address. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to respond to this order will 1 || result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for failure to prosecute. 2 | Dated: 07/01/25 ve - S$ . 3 op WL 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 || 4, robi3194.24 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
(PS) Robinson v. Vallejo CA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ps-robinson-v-vallejo-ca-caed-2025.