Darden v. Spencer et al

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING CASE for failure to prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/27/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
2
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
GERALDINE DARDEN,
5
6
7
8
9

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TODD SPENCER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:12-cv-01001 GSA PC
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

10
11
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
12
§ 1983. Plaintiff has consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
13
On June 21, 2012, the Court sent to Plaintiff new case documents and a form for consent
14
to proceed before a magistrate judge. Plaintiff was directed to return the consent form to the
15
court. On June 27, 2012, the documents served on Plaintiff was returned by the U.S. Postal
16
Service as undeliverable.
17
Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep
18
the court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 83-183(b) provides, in
19
pertinent part:
20
21
22
23

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 days
thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

24
In the instant case, sixty three days have passed since Plaintiff's mail was returned and he has not
25
notified the court of a current address.
26
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the court must
27
consider several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
28

1

court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public

2

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic

3

sanctions. Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d

4

1439 (9th Cir. 1988). The court finds that the public’s interest in expeditiously resolving this

5

litigation and the court’s interest in managing the docket weigh in favor of dismissal. The court

6

cannot hold this case in abeyance indefinitely based on plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of his

7

address. The third factor, risk of prejudice to defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since

8

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

9

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

10

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits -- is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor

11

of dismissal discussed herein. Finally, given the court’s inability to communicate with plaintiff

12

based on plaintiff’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address, no lesser sanction is

13

feasible.

14
15
16
17

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that this action is dismissed for Plaintiff's
failure to prosecute. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
220hhe

August 27, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2