Hadley v. Barnes et al

Filing 12

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this Action be DISMISSED Based on Plaintiff's Failure to Obey a Court Order and Failure to Update His Address re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/2012. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARD HADLEY,

1:10-cv-0521-AWI-MJS (PC)

Plaintiff,

12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO OBEY
A COURT ORDER AND FAILURE TO
UPDATE ADDRESS

13
v.
14
15

ROBERT BARNES, et al.,

(ECF No. 11)

16
Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
/
18

Plaintiff Leonard Hadley, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro
19
se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
20
On January 31, 2012, the Court issued an Order, ordering Plaintiff to show cause
21
as to why Plaintiff’s prior actions referred to in the Order did not count as “strikes” under
22
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice to
23
allow Plaintiff to refile with the submission of the $350.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff
24
was given fourteen days in which to respond. The February 17, 2012 deadline has
25
passed without Plaintiff responding to the Court’s Order.
26
In addition, on February 6, 2012, the Court’s January 31, 2012 Order, was returned
27
by the U.S. Postal Service as undeliverable to Plaintiff. Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b),
28

1

a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the Court apprised of his or her

2

current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent part:

3

5

If 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 notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63)
days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss
the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

6

In the instant case, over 63 days have passed since Plaintiff's mail was returned, and he

7

has not notified the Court of a current address.

4

8

Local Rule 110 provides that “failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

9

Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any

10

and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the

11

inherent power to control their dockets and “in the exercise of that power, they may

12

impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v.

13

Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action, with

14

prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute an action, failure to obey a court order,

15

or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th

16

Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

17

1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring

18

amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988)

19

(dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court

20

apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987)

21

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

22

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with local

23

rules).

24

In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to obey

25

a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several factors:

26

(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the Court’s need to

27
28

-2-

1

manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring

2

disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives.

3

Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130;

4

Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53.

5

In the instant case, the Court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously

6

resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in managing its docket weigh in favor of

7

dismissal. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of

8

dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay

9

in prosecuting an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The

10

fourth factor -- public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly

11

outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, a court’s

12

warning to a party that his failure to obey the court’s order will result in dismissal satisfies

13

the “consideration of alternatives” requirement. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d at 1262;

14

Malone, 833 at 132-33; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. The Court’s Order expressly stated

15

that Plaintiff was to show cause as to “why the action should not be dismissed without

16

prejudice to allow Plaintiff to refile with the submission of the $350.00 filing fee.” (ECF No.

17

11.)

18

noncompliance with the Court’s Order.

19
20

Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning that dismissal would result from his

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED
based on Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order and failure to update his address.

21

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District

22

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

23

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations,

24

any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such

25

a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

26

Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days

27
28

-3-

1

after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within

2

the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Y1

3

st, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated:

ci4d6

May 4, 2012

/s/

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-