Mayfield v. Mix et al
Filing
69
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 5/9/2014 recommending Dismissal re 1 Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint. Referred to Judge Anthony W. Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 5/30/2014. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DWAYNE MAYFIELD,
1:10cv01091 AWI DLB PC
10
Plaintiff,
11
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
12
M. MIX, et al.,
FIFTEEN-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff Dwayne Mayfield (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed on June 16, 2010. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint for
violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants E. Mason and M. Mix. Defendants’
December 27, 2013, motion for summary judgment is pending.
On February 14, 2014, the Court issued a notice to Plaintiff warning him that if he did not
oppose the motion for summary judgment, the motion would be decided without the benefit of any
arguments he may have.
On February 24, 2014, the United States Postal Service returned the order with the notation,
“Undeliverable, Paroled.”
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times, and Local
Rule 183(b) provides, “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
28
1
1
sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without
2
prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal
3
of an action for failure to prosecute.1
Plaintiff’s address change was due on or before April 28, 2014, but he failed to file one and
4
5
he has not otherwise been in contact with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action
6
for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to consider several factors: (1) the public’s
7
interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk
8
of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and
9
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988)
10
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084
11
(9th Cir. 2010); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217,
12
1226 (9th Cir. 2006). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that
13
must be met in order for a court to take action. In re PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).
14
This case has been pending since 2010, and the expeditious resolution of litigation and the
15
Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227. Further, the opposing
16
party is necessarily prejudiced when he is unaware of the plaintiff’s location during the discovery
17
phase of the litigation. Id.
With respect to the fourth factor, “public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits
18
19
strongly counsels against dismissal,” but “this factor lends little support to a party whose
20
responsibility it is to move a case toward disposition on the merits but whose conduct impedes
21
progress in that direction.” Id. at 1228.
22
Finally, given the Court’s and Defendant’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are
23
no other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. In re PPA, 460
24
F.3d at 1228-29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.
25
26
27
28
1
Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon
Preservation Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
2
1
2
3
4
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of this action, without
prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 183(b).
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge
5
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fifteen (15)
6
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written
7
objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
8
Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
9
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
10
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
11
12
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
May 9, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?