Andrews v. Youngblood

Filing 9

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARCQUAL ANDREWS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
DONNY YOUNGBLOOD,
Defendant.

CASE No. 1:11-cv-01669-MJS
ORDER
DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF‟S
COMPLAINT
FOR
FAILURE
TO
PROSECUTE
(ECF No. 8)
CLERK SHALL CLOSE THE CASE

16
17

Plaintiff Marcqual Andrews is a former county jail detainee proceeding pro se and

18

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff

19

has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction for all purposes. (ECF No. 5.)

20

On August 7, 2014, the Court issued an order directed at Plaintiff and mailed a

21

copy of it to Plaintiff‟s address of record. (ECF No. 8.) On August 15, 2014, the United

22

States Postal Service returned Plaintiff‟s copy marked “undeliverable”.

23

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

24

keep the Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b)

25

provides, in pertinent part:

26
27
28

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.
1

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

1
2

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

3

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

4

court is required to consider several factors: „(1) the public‟s interest in expeditious

5

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

6

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

7

(5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.‟” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th

8

Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These

9

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

10

order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability

11

Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

12

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

13

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

14

warranted as there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Carey, 856 F.2d at

15

1441.

16
17

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

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 31, 2014

/s/

21

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2