Andrews v. Youngblood
ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff's Complaint For Failure To Prosecute (ECF No. 8 ), Clerk Shall Close The Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 10/31/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE No. 1:11-cv-01669-MJS
(ECF No. 8)
CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE
Plaintiff Marcqual Andrews is a former county jail detainee proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes. (ECF No. 5.)
On August 7, 2014, the Court issued an order directed at Plaintiff and mailed a
copy of it to Plaintiff‟s address of record. (ECF No. 8.) On August 15, 2014, the United
States Postal Service returned Plaintiff‟s copy marked “undeliverable”.
Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to
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.
“In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district
court is required to consider several factors: „(1) the public‟s interest in expeditious
resolution of litigation; (2) the court‟s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice
to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and
(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.‟” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th
Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These
factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in
order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability
Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).
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 as there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Carey, 856 F.2d at
Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED, without prejudice, based on
Plaintiff‟s failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
October 31, 2014
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?