Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issues an order to show cause in Toepfer v. City of Vallejo. The court gives the pro se plaintiffs twenty-one days to file an amended complaint, respond to the order to show cause, and for specified plaintiffs to provide current addresses. The order warns that failure to comply may result in a recommendation to dismiss the action for failure to prosecute.
Holdings
- A district court may impose sanctions, including involuntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or fails to comply with court orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or local rules.
- A pro se plaintiff must keep the court and opposing parties informed of the plaintiff’s current address, and failure to update an address after mail is returned may support dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should issue an order to show cause and provide a final opportunity to comply before recommending dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to obey court orders.
- Whether plaintiffs’ failure to file an amended complaint and six plaintiffs’ failure to maintain current addresses violated applicable federal and local rules and could support involuntary dismissal.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991)(applied)
- Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005)(applied)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992)(applied)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…