Christian Olmos Vasquez v. Santa Ana Jail et al

Filing 24

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. (See Order for details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

CHRISTIAN OLMOS VASQUEZ,
Plaintiff,

14
15

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

16

Case No. SA CV 15-635 PSG (MRW)

SANTA ANA JAIL, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

The Court dismisses the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and
for failure of a pro se litigant to update her address with the Court.

21

***

22

This is a prisoner civil rights action. Plaintiff is in ICE custody in the

23

Santa Ana Jail. (Docket # 11 at 1.) She contends that the jail staff or immigration

24

personnel improperly failed to attend to an injury that she sustained while in

25

custody. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the original complaint and an amended

26

pleading. In June 2015, Judge Wilner directed the Marshals Service to serve the

27

First Amended Complaint on one of the named defendants. (Docket # 12, 13.)

28

The Post Office returned the Court’s order regarding service as

1
2

undeliverable. (Docket # 16.) According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff never

3

updated her address with the Court as required by Judge Wilner’s original case

4

management order (Docket # 12 at 3-4) and under Local Rule 41-6. That Local

5

Rule requires a pro se litigant to update his or her mailing address or risk dismissal

6

of the action for lack of prosecution.

7

In August 2015, Judge Wilner issued an order to show cause why the action

8

should not be dismissed based on Petitioner’s failure to prosecute the case and her

9

failure to update her mailing address as required. (Docket # 20.) Petitioner failed

10

to file any response to the OSC. The Court has not received any filing from

11

Petitioner since the submission of the First Amended Complaint several months

12

ago.

13
14

***
Rule 41(b) provides that if a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with

15

these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any

16

claim against it.” Dismissal also may be ordered by the Court sua sponte. Link v.

17

Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). Dismissal of a civil action under

18

Rule 41 may be appropriate to advance the public’s interest in the expeditious

19

resolution of litigation, the court’s need to manage its docket, and to avoid the risk

20

of prejudice to defendants. Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F. 3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir.

21

2010). Additionally, a court should consider the public policy favoring disposition

22

of cases on their merits and the availability of less drastic alternatives in its

23

evaluation. Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988).

24
25
26
27
28

Additionally, Local Rule 41-6 provides in pertinent part:
A party proceeding pro se shall keep the Court and
opposing parties apprised of such party’s current address
and telephone number[.] If mail directed by the Clerk to a
pro se plaintiff’s address of record is returned
undelivered by the Postal Service, and if, within fifteen
2

3

(15) days of the service date, such plaintiff fails to notify,
in writing, the Court and opposing parties of said
plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the
action with or without prejudice for want of prosecution.

4

The dismissal of an action based on a litigant’s failure to inform a district court of

5

his or her address is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440;

6

Hickman v. County of Butte, 586 F. App’x 285 (9th Cir. 2014) (same).

1
2

7

In the present action, the Court finds dismissal is appropriate. Plaintiff

8

failed to provide the Court with up-to-date contact information. As a result, an

9

order of this Court was returned as undeliverable. The magistrate judge then

10

issued an OSC and gave Petitioner ample opportunity to update her address with

11

the Court as required by Local Rule 41-6. Plaintiff’s failure to do so demonstrates

12

that she has no interest in advancing the action here.

13

By contrast, the Court, the defense, and the public have a strong interest in

14

terminating this action. This is particularly true given that Plaintiff effectively

15

chose to abandon her case by failing to update this Court with her current

16

whereabouts. The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate under Rule 41(b) and

17

Local Rule 41-6. Furthermore, because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant who did not

18

abide by the Court’s recent order, no sanction short of dismissal will be effective in

19

moving this case forward. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1440.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3

Accordingly, for the above reasons, this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5

Dated: 9/15/15

6

___________________________________
HON. PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8

Presented by:

9
10
11
12
13

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A dismissal under Rule 41 ordinarily with prejudice to further
proceedings as it “operates as an adjudication on the merits.” However, given the
circumstances of the dismissal, Plaintiff’s
custodial status, and her previous difficulty in responding to the magistrate
judge’s orders, the Court finds it to be in the interests of justice to dismiss the
action without prejudice.
4