Aldana v. Brown, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to Comply With a Court Order 11 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/31/13: This action is DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to prosecute; Clerk Shall Close the Case. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUBEN ALDANA,

11
12

CASE NO.
Plaintiff,

1:11-cv-01288-MJS (PC)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY
WITH A COURT ORDER

v.

13
GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, et al.,

(ECF No. 11)

14
15
16

Defendants.

CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE
/

17
18

Plaintiff Ruben Aldana is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in his civil rights actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented

20

to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4.)

21

The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 31, 2013, and directed Plaintiff

22

to file an amended complaint or notify the Court (within thirty days) of his desire proceed

23

only on his cognizable claim. (ECF No. 10). That order was returned by the United States

24
Postal Service as undeliverable. On May 7, 2013, the Court Ordered Plaintiff to show
25
26

cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 11.)

27
1

1

Plaintiff was to respond by May 21, 2013. (Id.) The deadline has passed without Plaintiff

2

having filed a response to the Order to Show Cause.

3

Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

keep the Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b)
provides, in pertinent part:
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.
In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail
was returned, and he has not notified the Court of a current address.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15
16

defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the

17

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

18

(quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide

19

a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court

20

to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d

21

1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

22
23

In this instance, Local Rule 183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on

24

returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is

25

warranted and there are no other reasonable alternatives available. See Carey, 856 F.2d

26

at 1441.

27
2

1
2

Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on
Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated:

7

ci4d6

May 31, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3