Lenares v. Salazar et al
Filing
9
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Dismissing the Action Without Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/12/2012. Referred to Judge Ishii. Objections to F&R due by 12/26/2012. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
FRANKIE VALLES LENARES,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
KEN SALAZAR, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:12-cv-00186-AWI-JLT
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DISMISSING THE ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
Plaintiff Frankie Valles Lenares (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the American Procedures Act, and the Indian Reorganization Act. For
19
the following reasons, the Court recommends the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
20
I.
Relevant Procedural History
21
On September 28, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend, and
22
attempted service at an address provided by Plaintiff. (Doc. 8). However, the order was returned as
23
undeliverable on October 9, 2012. Plaintiff failed to notify the Court of a change of address.
24
II.
25
Requirements of the Local Rules
Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the
26
Court apprised of his current address: “If mail directed to a plaintiff in propria persona by the Clerk is
27
returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties
28
within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without
1
1
prejudice for failure to prosecute.” LR 183(b). Because more than 63 days have passed since the
2
document was returned as undeliverable, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules.
3
III.
Discussion and Analysis
4
“District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a
5
court may impose sanctions including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los
6
Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a
7
party’s failure to prosecute an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local
8
rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 2995) (dismissal for failure to comply
9
with local rules); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to
10
comply with an order requiring amendment of complaint); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424
11
(9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).
12
In determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with the
13
Local Rules, or failure to obey a court order, the Court must consider several factors, including: “(1)
14
the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;
15
(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their
16
merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; see also
17
Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61; Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.
18
In the case at hand, the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the
19
Court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The risk of prejudice to the
20
defendants also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from the occurrence
21
of unreasonable delay in prosecution of an action. See Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th
22
Cir. 1976). The Court will not, and cannot, hold the case in abeyance based upon Plaintiff’s failure to
23
prosecute or notify the Court of a change in address. Further, the policy favoring disposition of cases
24
on their merits is outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal.
25
On February 13, 2012, the Court warned Plaintiff: “Failure to comply with the Local Rules,
26
federal rules, or a court order . . . will be grounds for dismissal, entry of default, or other
27
appropriate sanctions.” (Doc. 3-2 at 1) (emphasis in original). Thus, Plaintiff had adequate warning
28
that dismissal would result from his noncompliance with the Local Rules, and this satisfies the
2
1
requirement that the Court consider less drastic measures than dismissal of the action. Ferdik, 963
2
F.2d at 1262; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1424. Moreover, no lesser sanction is feasible given the Court’s
3
inability to communicate with Plaintiff.
4
IV.
5
6
Findings and Recommendations
Plaintiff has failed to follow the requirements of the Local Rules or to prosecute this action.
As set forth above, the factors set forth by the Ninth Circuit weigh in favor of dismissal of the matter.
7
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
8
1.
This action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
9
2.
The Clerk of Court be directed to close this action.
10
These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
11
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local
12
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen
13
days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written
14
objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
15
Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the
16
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
17
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
18
19
20
21
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 12, 2012
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:
9j7khijed
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?