Jones v. Pleasant Valley State Prison et al

Filing 6

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS That This Action be Dismissed for Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/24/2014, referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 BENYELLE JONES, 14 Plaintiff, 15 16 17 v. PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00457-LJO-MJS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (ECF NO. 3) FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE Defendants. 18 19 20 Plaintiff Benyelle Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 21 filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 31, 2014. (ECF No. 22 1.) 23 Consent, which was returned by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable on 24 April 9, 2014. On April 1, 2014, the Court issued the First Informational Order and Order re 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 183(b), a party appearing in propria persona is required to 26 keep the Court apprised of his or her current address at all times. Local Rule 183(b) 27 provides, in pertinent part: 28 1 1 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. 2 3 4 5 In the instant case, more than sixty-three days have passed since Plaintiff’s mail was returned, and he has not notified the Court of a current address. 6 “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district 7 court is required to consider several factors: ‘(1) the public’s interest in expeditious 8 resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice 9 10 11 12 13 14 to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.’” Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)). These factors guide a court in deciding what to do, and are not conditions that must be met in order for a court to take action. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 In this instance, Local Rule 183(b) provides for the dismissal of an action based on returned mail. Given the Court’s inability to communicate with Plaintiff, dismissal is warranted as there are no other reasonable alternatives available. Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS DISMISSAL of this action, without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Local Rule 183(b). These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 27 28 2 1 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 2 1991). 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 24, 2014 /s/ 6 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 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?