Zamora v. Vento et al

Filing 11

ORDER DISMISSING this Action, without Prejudice, for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/17/2013. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUDY ZAMORA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. Case No. 1:12-cv-02029-DLB PC ORDER DISMISSING THIS ACTION, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE JOLENE VENTO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff Rudy Zamora (“Plaintiff”) is or was a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 31, 2013, the 18 Court received a returned order that was issued on July 24, 2013. The sixty-three (63) day period 19 for notice of change of address has now expired, and Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of 20 address or otherwise notified the Court. 21 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to keep the 22 Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Plaintiff was advised of this rule in the 23 Court’s First Informational Order. (ECF No. 3 ¶ 11.) Local Rule 183(b) provides, in pertinent 24 part: 25 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 sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 1 1 In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned, and 2 he has not notified the Court of a current address. 3 4 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district court is required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of 5 6 litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) 7 the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less 8 drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. 9 Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to 10 11 do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Lit., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation 12 13 omitted). In this instance, Local Rule 183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on 14 15 returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted 16 and there are no other reasonable alternatives available. See Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. 19 This action is dismissed, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute; and 20 2. 21 22 The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: 24 /s/ Dennis October 17, 2013 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 25 26 L. Beck 3b142a 27 28 2

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?