Anthony Bray v. Dickinson et al

Filing 10

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why Case should not be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute; Fourteen (14) Day Deadline signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/20/2013. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY BRAY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

CASE No. 1:12-cv-00710-MJS
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

KATHLEEN DICKINSON, et al.,
Defendants.

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

16
17
18

Plaintiff Anthony Bray is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On October 9, 2013, the Court’s September 30, 2013 order dismissing Plaintiff’s

20

First Amended Complaint with leave to amend was returned by the United States Postal

21

Service as undeliverable to Plaintiff. More than 63 days have passed and Plaintiff has

22

not provided the Court with a new address or otherwise responded.

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

1
2

In the instant case, over sixty-three days have passed since the Court’s

3

September 30, 2013 order, directed to Plaintiff, was returned, and he has not notified the

4

Court of a current address.

5

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

6

must consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

7

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

8

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

9

availability of less drastic sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th

10

Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court finds that the

11

public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this litigation and the Court’s interest in

12

managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The Court cannot hold this case in

13

abeyance indefinitely based on Plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of his address. The

14

third factor, risk of prejudice to the defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a

15

presumption of injury arises from the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting

16

an action. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor -

17

public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits - is greatly outweighed by the

18

factors in favor of dismissal discussed herein.

19

communicate with Plaintiff based on Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his

20

current address, no lesser sanction is feasible.

Finally, given the Court’s inability to

21

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of entry of

22

this order why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Failure to meet

23

this deadline will result in dismissal of this action.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 20, 2013

/s/

27

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

28
2

1

ci4d6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3