Martinez v. Allison et al

Filing 90

ORDER DISMISSING CASE signed by Chief Judge Ralph R. Beistline on 6/17/15. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RONALD F. MARTINEZ,
Case No. 1:11-cv-001749-RRB
Plaintiff,
DISMISSAL ORDER
vs.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, Warden, et al.,
Defendants.

The record reflects that this Court’s Order Granting Motion in Limine at Docket 67
and Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment at Docket 66 was entered and served
by mail on Plaintiff on April 27, 2015.1 The record further reflects that on May 12, 2015, the
Court’s Orders were returned as undeliverable. In its Screening Order the Court specifically
warned Plaintiff that he must notify this Court of any change in his address, and the failure
to do so could result in dismissal without further notice.2 Plaintiff Ronald F. Martinez has
not provided the Court with a current address. 3
This Court may dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order
or rule. In so doing, this Court must weigh five factors: (1) the public's interest in
expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk

1

Dockets 88, 89.

2

Docket 11.

3

See L.R. 183(b).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 1

of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and
(5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits.4
In this case, weighing those factors to the extent that may otherwise be applicable,
this Court concludes that dismissal without prejudice presents a proper balance among the
five factors.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June, 2015.
S/ RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002).

DISMISSAL ORDER
Martinez v. Allison 1:11-cv-01749-RRB – 2