Trajan Paul Green v. R Boggust et al

Filing 34

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Jesus G. Bernal. Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Dkt. 10) and this action are dismissedwithout prejudice. Defendant Boggust's motion to dismiss (Dkt. 26) is denied asmoot. Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. EDCV-15-02578-JGB (KES)

TRAJAN PAUL GREEN,
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
LACK OF PROSECUTION

v.
R. BOGGUST, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Trajan Paul Green (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner in state custody, initiated this civil
rights action in December 2015. It appears that he was released from custody in late
2016. Because he has failed to keep the Court apprised of his address, this action
will be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the
district court is required to weigh several factors: “(1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the
risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases
on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856
1

1

F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988). Local Rule 41-6 provides as follows:

2

L.R. 41-6 Dismissal - Failure of Pro Se Plaintiff to Keep Court

3

Apprised of Current Address. A party proceeding pro se shall keep the

4

Court and opposing parties apprised of such party’s current address and

5

telephone number, if any, and e-mail address, if any. If mail directed

6

by the Clerk to a pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned

7

undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen (15) days of the

8

service date, such plaintiff fails to notify, in writing, the Court and

9

opposing parties of said plaintiff’s current address, the Court may

10

dismiss the action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.

11

II.

12

BACKGROUND

13

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint on December 18, 2015. (Dkt. 1.) After the

14

Court dismissed his initial complaint and first amended complaint with leave to

15

amend (Dkt. 4, 7, 8), Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on March 30, 2016.

16

(Dkt. 10.) On June 8, 2016, the Court dismissed all of Plaintiff’s claims with the

17

exception of two claims against Defendant Deputy Sheriff R. Boggust. (Dkt. 12, 15.)

18

On October 25, 2016, Defendant Boggust moved to dismiss one of these

19

claims. (Dkt. 26.) On October 26, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response

20

to the motion to dismiss on or before November 21, 2016. (Dkt. 28.) On November

21

18, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension until January 20, 2017

22

to file his opposition. (Dkt. 30.) In the motion requesting an extension, Plaintiff

23

indicated that he was “currently in the process of being released from prison” and

24

that he “will be homeless and need to find housing.” (Dkt. 29.) The Court’s

25

November 18 Order was returned as undeliverable because Plaintiff had been

26

“Paroled/Discharged.” (Dkt. 31.)

27

On December 8, 2016, the Court sua sponte extended the 15-day deadline in

28

Local Rule 41-6, giving Plaintiff until January 20, 2017 to notify the Court of his
2

1

current address. (Dkt. 32.) The Court admonished Plaintiff, “If Plaintiff fails to

2

timely file a notice of his current address, the Court will recommend that this action

3

be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) This Order too was

4

returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. 33.) As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not

5

provided the Court with an updated mailing address or contact information.

6

III.

7

ANALYSIS

8

In Carey, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a dismissal for lack of prosecution under

9

a local rule similar to Local Rule 41-6. In rejecting the plaintiff’s arguments that the

10

district court failed to consider less drastic sanctions and failed to determine whether

11

the plaintiff’s delay in prosecution was unreasonable or intentional, the Ninth Circuit

12

held:

13

[W]e can imagine no less drastic sanction that was available to

14

the district court. Local Rule 41(b)(2) provides that the action may be

15

dismissed without prejudice, not with prejudice. The district court could

16

not contact Carey to threaten him with some lesser sanction. An order

17

to show cause why dismissal was not warranted or an order imposing

18

sanctions would only find itself taking a round trip tour through the

19

United States mail. … Local Rule 41(b)(2)'s practical effect is merely

20

to encourage all pro se litigants, and not just pro se prisoners, to keep

21

the court abreast of their current mailing addresses, as all other litigants

22

are required to do, to enable the court to communicate with them when

23

necessary. …

24

[T]he district court, being unable to communicate with Carey,

25

could not ascertain the reasons for his complacency in pursuing his

26

case. It would be absurd to require the district court to hold a case in

27

abeyance indefinitely just because it is unable, through the plaintiff's

28

own fault, to contact the plaintiff to determine if his reasons for not
3

1
2

prosecuting his lawsuit are reasonable or not.
856 F. 2d at 1441.

3

The present case is indistinguishable from Carey. Plaintiff’s failure to keep

4

the court apprised of his address prevents the Court from ascertaining whether his

5

failure is deliberate or excusable.

6

resolution of this civil rights litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and the

7

risk of prejudice to Defendant Boggust, whose motion to dismiss remains pending

8

and unanswered, a dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.

Given the public’s interest in expeditious

9

IV.

10

CONCLUSION

11

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint (Dkt. 10) and this action are dismissed

12

without prejudice. Defendant Boggust’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 26) is denied as

13

moot. Judgment will be entered in accordance with this Order.

14
15

DATED: February 2, 2017

16

____________________________________
JESUS G. BERNAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22

Presented by:
___________________________
KAREN E. SCOTT
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
4