Whitfield v. Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center et al

Filing 6

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/05/2013. Show Cause Response due by 8/5/2013. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL WHITFIELD, 11 12 13 14 15 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _____________________________________ ) 1:13-cv-0442 LJO BAM ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Whitfield (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate at the Fresno County Jail proceeding 18 pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to Title 42 of the United States Code section 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed a complaint commencing this action on March 26, 2013, together with a request to 20 proceed in forma pauperis and a motion to appoint counsel. (Docs. 1, 2 & 3). 21 On April 12, 2013, the Court held that Plaintiff had not demonstrated he is eligible to proceed 22 in forma pauperis. The Court issued an order recognizing Plaintiff as a three strikes litigant under 23 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)) and requiring Plaintiff to submit the $350.00 filing fee to proceed with this 24 action. 25 The April 12th order, properly served on Plaintiff at Fresno County Jail, Post Office Box 872, 26 Fresno, California 93712, was returned by the postal service marked “Undeliverable, Not in 27 Custody.” 28 1 1 2 On May 6, 2013, a second piece of mail addressed to Plaintiff at the Fresno County Jail was returned by the postal service marked “Undeliverable -Not in Custody.” 3 Local Rule 182(f) provides that attorneys and any party appearing pro se are “under a 4 continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other parties of any change of address or telephone 5 number of the attorney or the pro se party.” Thus, Plaintiff is under a continuing duty to keep the 6 Clerk and others informed of any change to his address or telephone number. Mail addressed to 7 Plaintiff has been returned as undeliverable, and therefore, Plaintiff has failed to keep the Court 8 informed of his current address despite a continuing duty to do so. 9 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules 10 or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions 11 . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” District courts have the inherent power to control their 12 dockets and "in the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate 13 . . . dismissal of a case.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court 14 may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party's failure to prosecute an action, failure to 15 obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 16 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 17 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment 18 of complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to 19 comply with local rule requiring pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. 20 Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with court order); 21 Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to lack of 22 prosecution and failure to comply with local rules). In determining whether to dismiss an action for 23 lack of prosecution, failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the court must 24 consider several factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's 25 need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring 26 disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Thompson, 27 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423-24; Malone, 833 F.2d at 130; Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 28 2 1 1260-61; Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53. 2 Plaintiff MICHAEL WHITFIELD is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, if any, why 3 the action should not be dismissed for his failure to follow the Local Rules. Plaintiff SHALL file 4 a declaration addressing his failure to keep the court informed, or in the alternative, shall file a 5 Notice of Change of Address with this Court, no later than August 5, 2013. In the event Plaintiff 6 fails to show cause for his failure, this Court will recommend dismissal of the action in its entirety. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 10c20k July 5, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?