Goff v. Gamez et al

Filing 12

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

THOMAS L. GOFF,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.

1:15-cv-00937-AWI-EPG (PC)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE AND OBEY LOCAL RULES

GAMEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

Thomas Goff (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

16

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on

17

June 22, 2015. (ECF No. 1). On September 29, 2016, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean

18

screened the complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Magistrate Judge found that the complaint stated

19

an Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Gamez and Doe, and a Fourth Amendment

20

claim against defendants Everhart and Doe. (Id.). The Magistrate Judge gave Plaintiff the

21

option of proceeding against these defendants, filing an amended complaint, or notifying the

22

Court that he stands on his complaint, subject to the issuance of findings and recommendations

23

consistent with the screening order. (Id.).

24

However, it appears that Plaintiff never received a copy of the screening order because

25

the screening order was returned as undeliverable. By operation of Local Rule 183, Plaintiff

26

was given until December 27, 2016, to file a change of address. Plaintiff failed to do so.

27

Local Rule 183(b) states: “A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court

28

and opposing parties advised as to his or her current address. If mail directed to a plaintiff in
1

1

propria persona by the Clerk is returned by the U.S. Postal Service, and if such plaintiff fails to

2

notify the Court and opposing parties within sixty-three (63) days thereafter of a current

3

address, the Court may dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.”

4

Additionally, Plaintiff was sent a first informational order, which stated that “[i]f mail directed

5

to a pro se plaintiff at the address of record is returned by the United States Postal Service as

6

undeliverable, the order will not be re−served a second time absent a notice of change of

7

address. If a pro se plaintiff's address is not updated within sixty−three (63) days of mail being

8

returned as undeliverable, the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” (ECF No. 4, p.

9

5).

10

Plaintiff was warned that a failure to notify the Court of a change of address would

11

result in dismissal of the case. Despite this warning, Plaintiff has failed to update his address as

12

required by Local Rule 183(b) and the first informational order. Without a current address,

13

there is no way for this case to proceed. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 183, and after

14

considering the relevant factors, the Court finds it appropriate to dismiss this case for failure to

15

prosecute and failure to obey the Local Rules. See Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1440-42 (9th

16

Cir. 1988); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423-25 (9th Cir. 1986).

17
18

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

19

1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to

20
21

obey the Local Rules; and
2. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2