Spearman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A Boone on 7/3/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TEDDY L. SPEARMAN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

Case No. 1:10-cv-02320-SAB (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION,
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

Plaintiff Teddy L. Spearman (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

13
14

forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

15

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation

16

of civil rights by federal actors. On April 10, 2013, the Court received a returned order that was

17

issued on February 12, 2013. The sixty-three (63) day period for notice of change of address has

18

now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address or otherwise notified the

19

Court.

20
Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the
21
22

Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Plaintiff was advised of this rule in the

23

Court’s First Informational Order. (ECF No. 5 ¶ 11.) Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent

24

part:

25

27

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.

28

In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was

26

1

1

returned, and he has not notified the Court of a current address.

2

“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is

3

required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

4

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4)

5
6

the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less

7

drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v.

8

Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to

9

do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action.

10
11

In re

Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Lit., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation
omitted).

12
13
14

In this instance, Local Rule 183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on
returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted

15

and there are no other reasonable alternatives available.

16

Accordingly,

17
18

See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

19

This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute; and

20
21

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

July 3, 2013

_

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2