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)

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