Goff v. Gamez et al
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice for Failure to Prosecute and Obey Local Rules, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/11/17. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THOMAS L. GOFF,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND OBEY LOCAL RULES
GAMEZ, et al.,
Thomas Goff (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on
June 22, 2015. (ECF No. 1). On September 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean
screened the complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Magistrate Judge found that the complaint stated
an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Gamez and Doe, and a Fourth Amendment
claim against defendants Everhart and Doe. (Id.). The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff the
option of proceeding against these defendants, filing an amended complaint, or notifying the
Court that he stands on his complaint, subject to the issuance of findings and recommendations
consistent with the screening order. (Id.).
However, it appears that Plaintiff never received a copy of the screening order because
the screening order was returned as undeliverable. By operation of Local Rule 183, Plaintiff
was given until December 27, 2016, to file a change of address. Plaintiff failed to do so.
Local Rule 183(b) states: “A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court
and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. 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.”
Additionally, Plaintiff was sent a first informational order, which stated that “[i]f mail directed
to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the United States Postal Service as
undeliverable, the order will not be re−served a second time absent a notice of change of
address. If a pro se plaintiff's address is not updated within sixty−three (63) days of mail being
returned as undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (ECF No. 4, p.
Plaintiff was warned that a failure to notify the Court of a change of address would
result in dismissal of the case. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has failed to update his address as
required by Local Rule 183(b) and the first informational order. Without a current address,
there is no way for this case to proceed. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 183, and after
considering the relevant factors, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case for failure to
prosecute and failure to obey the Local Rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-42 (9th
Cir. 1988); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-25 (9th Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to
obey the Local Rules; and
2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
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?