Miller v. Allenby
Filing
15
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice for Failure to Provide a Current Address and Failure to Prosecute, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12/7/15. Objections to F&R Due Within Fourteen Days. This case has been assigned to District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill and Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. The new case number is 1:15-cv-01207-LJO-MJS (PC). (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
BRUCE WAYNE MILLER,
Plaintiff,
11
12
13
14
15
Case No. 1:15-cv-01207-MJS (PC)
v.
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO DISMISS ACTION WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO
PROVIDE A CURRENT ADDRESS AND
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE
Defendants.
CLERK TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
TO CASE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 13.) On September 14,
2015, the Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff the Court’s order granting his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 13.) On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff’s mail was returned
as undeliverable. Plaintiff has not since provided the Court with his current address.
Local Rule 183(b) requires a party proceeding pro se to keep the Court apprised
of his 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.”
Further, “[d]istrict courts have inherent power to control their dockets [and] . . .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
[i]n the exercise of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate,
default or dismissal.” Thompson v. Housing Auth., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A
court may dismiss an action, with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute,
failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g., Ghazali v.
Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for noncompliance with local rule);
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to
comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint); Carey v. King, 856 F.2d
1439, 1440-41 (9th Cir. 1988) (dismissal for failure to comply with local rule requiring
pro se plaintiffs to keep court apprised of address); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833
F.2d 128, 130-31 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order);
Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424-25 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for lack of
prosecution and failure to comply with local rules).
In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, failure to
obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules, the Court must consider several
factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the [C]ourt’s
need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public
policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits and (5) the availability of less drastic
alternatives.” Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831; Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423.
“The public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors
dismissal.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Yourish v.
California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999)). Here, the Court’s interest in
managing its docket weighs in favor of dismissal because Plaintiff has failed to comply
with the Local Rules and to prosecute the matter. The Court cannot justify continuing to
expend its scarce resources in such circumstances. The third factor, risk of prejudice to
Defendants, also weighs in favor of dismissal, since a presumption of injury arises from
the occurrence of unreasonable delay in prosecuting this action. Anderson v. Air West,
542 F.2d 522, 524 (9th Cir. 1976). The fourth factor – public policy favoring disposition
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
of cases on their merits – is greatly outweighed by the factors in favor of dismissal
discussed herein. Finally, as for the availability of lesser sanctions, at this stage in the
proceedings there is little available which would constitute a satisfactory lesser sanction
while preserving scarce Court resources. Plaintiff has not responded to the Court’s
order or otherwise notified the Court of his current address.
6
7
8
Accordingly, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the action be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based on Plaintiff’s failure to provide a current address and
failure to prosecute.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff has not returned the consent to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction form.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office assign a District Court Judge to this
case.
These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District
Judge who will be assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1).
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and
Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy
on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed
within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that
failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on
appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.
Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
22
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
25
Dated:
December 7, 2015
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?