Herrera et al v. California State Superior Courts et al

Filing 4

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding Dismissal of 1 Action for Failure to Prosecute signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 08/02/017. Referred to Judge Ishii.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL HERRERA, et al.,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-0386-AWI-BAM

Plaintiff,

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE

v.
CALIFORNIA STATE SUPERIOR
COURTS, et al.,

FOURTEEN (14) DAY DEADLINE

Defendants.

16
17

Findings and Recommendations
18
I.
19

Background

Plaintiff Daniel Herrera (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on March
21
22

16, 2017. (ECF No. 1). On April 5, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). On May 16, 2017, the Court’s order was returned as

23
undeliverable.
24
II.

Discussion

25
Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Local
26
Rule 183(b) provides:
27
28

Address Changes. A party appearing in propria persona shall keep the Court
1

1

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 sixtythree (63) days thereafter of a current address, the Court may dismiss the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

2
3
4
5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) also provides for dismissal of an action for failure to
prosecute.1

6
7

According to the Court’s docket, Plaintiff’s address change was due no later than April
24, 2017. Plaintiff has failed to file a change of address and he has not otherwise been in contact

8

with the Court. “In determining whether to dismiss an action for lack of prosecution, the district

9

court is required to weigh several factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

10

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants;

11
12
13
14
15
16

(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) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted); accord Omstead v. Dell, Inc., 594 F.3d 1081, 1084 (9th Cir. 2010); In re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir. 2006).
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 PPA, 460 F.3d at 1226 (citation omitted).

17

Given Plaintiff’s failure to respond to this Court’s orders, the expeditious resolution of

18

litigation and the Court’s need to manage its docket weigh in favor of dismissal. Id. at 1227.

19

More importantly, given the Court’s apparent inability to communicate with Plaintiff, there are no

20

other reasonable alternatives available to address Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action and his

21
22
23

failure to apprise the Court of his current address. Id. at 1228–29; Carey, 856 F.2d at 1441. The
Court will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute this action.

24

III.

25
26

Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed,
without prejudice, based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule

27
1

28

Courts may dismiss actions sua sponte under Rule 41(b) based on the plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Hells Canyon
Pres. Council v. U. S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

2

1

183(b).

2

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District

3

Judge assigned to the case, under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14)

4

days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

5

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

6

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

7

specified time may result in the waiver of the “right to challenge the magistrate’s factual

8

findings” on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v.

9

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

August 2, 2017

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3